Gay marriage

I've been corresponding with a friend about various political/social issues. Here's my response to her question about my position on the issue of gay marriage. What do you think? Strengths? Weaknesses? Anything glaring I've left out? I'm trying to keep things non-religious, because obviously religious arguments will hold no weight with nonreligious people.

I really appreciate you asking me about this stuff. It gives me a chance to clarify my own thinking, and it is so nice to actually be able to have a reasonable discussion about these issues.

One of the really unfortunate consequences of such a polarized society such as the one in which we live, with people divided into "left" and "right" on nearly every issue, is that people tend to get very emotional about their positions, and as soon as emotions become paramount in debate, rational discussion ends. People quit listening to each other and start calling names instead.

On the issue you bring up, as you might expect, I am opposed to gay marriage. However, despite what many people on the other side of this issue may think, it has nothing to do with homophobia, or hatred, or mean-heartedness. I have no desire to hurt gay people, or to deny them any of the good things this life has to offer, or to imply that they are less human than anyone else. This is what I mean about emotions getting involved. People on the "left" in this issue become very emotional, and rightly so when they don't think about the issue in any terms other than "fairness."

First of all, marriage is not a "right." It is a legal contract sanctioned by the government. It is *not* a right. As soon as marriage starts being thought of as a "right," things get very complicated. If it is my "right" to be married, does that mean the government is therefore obligated to provide me a marriage partner?? Clearly not. Marriage is not a right.

Second, when we consider changing the legal criteria for marriage, we need to think very seriously about the consequences of such changes. There is another huge issue when it comes to gay marriage, and that is the "slippery slope" issue. If we open the door for gay marriage, there really is *no* legal basis to deny marriage to siblings pairs, to parent/child couples, to polygamists. And I think it would be a very bad move for a government to lend its sanction to incestual and other questionable kinds of unions. We do need a "bright line" distinction in this area, and the only one that holds up is the criteria of unrelated male and female.

I think most people don't really understand the purpose of marriage. The legal contract of marriage was originated for one purpose. For the protection of children. Marriage really has very little to do with the adults involved, and has everything to do with the protection of children that might result from such a union. I have *no* problem *whatsoever* with gay couples being awarded the same legal rights as married couples when it comes to benefits, inheritance rights, etc. No problem whatsoever. But the specific legal contract of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, in my opinion. And this opinion is based on the fact that children are best served when they are raised by a genetically unrelated mother and father.

I think there are fair questions about whether or not gay couples statistically are just as able to raise children fully capable of entering and maintaining stable society. My opinion is that there are essential differences between the genders (despite what Betty Friedan and other feminist movement proponents believe), and that society is best served when the majority of individuals are raised with an equal contribution of feminine and masculine influences. (And, not to be redundant, government should obviously not sanction anything that does not best serve the interest of the society). But I also concede that this is a matter for debate. As a society we simply have not had enough time to do the sociological studies to examine the long-term effects on children raised entirely without the influence of one gender or the other. And I think it would be very unwise to change the legal definition of marriage before we have a much greater level of undestanding in this area.

But really, are there any serious questions that children are *not* protected (and society *not* best served) when born to a father and mother who are full siblings, or, even worse, a mother seduced and impregnated by her own father?? Are children truly protected when born to the 15th wife of one man? (And I say this being the great-great-grandchild of a polygamist man and his 4th wife). Are there any real questions that such children run a significant risk of being less able to fully participate and contribute to a stable society?

I think as a people we should be *very* certain about the wisdom of changing such a fundamental platform in society as marriage. We better be very, very sure that there are not going to be terrible unintended consequences to our actions. As I said before, the question of marriage is much, much, much larger than simply two individuals who love each other and wish to be married. If it were *only* about that, there would be no question in my mind, at least, that gay marriage should be allowed. Unfortunately all the tangential issues make this issue much stickier than how it appears at first glance.

Here's just another example of possible complications and unintended consequences. Many churches are involved in adoptions. My church and the Catholic church in particular are very involved in placing children for adoption. At this point in time, my church can legally restrict adoption to legally married couples. What if the government were to grant full marriage privileges to any couple, gay, siblings, or whomever? Could my church be legally compelled to place children with couples, to whom it has deep religous objections? The inevitable consequence would be for the LDS church and Catholic church (just to name two) to withdraw from the adoption service. This would be a tragedy. Such a move would certainly would not be protecting these children.

So that's basically my position. I believe that too many people look at this issue in a very shallow way. Many people on the left see it simply as a matter of government treating gay people "unfairly." And some people on the very religious right, simply look at it as government sanctioning something about which they have deep religious or moral reservations. Both views are entirely too simplistic. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to having a full and open public debate about this issue. But few people on the left (sorry, but this is true) are willing to actually debate the real issues. They get stuck on the "fairness" issue and can't get off.