|
Preserving Marriage in an Age of Counterfeits How ‘Civil Unions’ Devalue the Real Thing By Mark A. Regan The
Case Against Counterfeiting Marriage Marriage
Is Not Open To Reinterpretation The nature of marriage is acknowledged worldwide. A 1999 poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide for the Second World Congress on Families reveals near universal support for the recognition of marriage as institution between one man and one woman. Eighty-four percent of respondents worldwide hold this view of marriage; 86 percent believes children should be reared in a household that has a married mother and father.1 Because it is not an arbitrary relationship created by the state, marriage precedes all civil and human relationships. It therefore serves as the cradle of freedom, according to G. K. Chesterton: “The ideal for which it [the family] stands is liberty. . . . It is the only institution that is at once necessary and voluntary. It is the only check on the state that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state, and more naturally than the state.”2 Therefore, if the state redefines marriage, it gains greater control over the family. Once Redefined, Marraige Could Mean Anything If marriage is no longer recognized as the union of one man and one woman, no guiding principle will remain to distinguish marriage from any other relationship. Because marriage is part of the created order, human beings cannot simply decide marriage is something other than what it is. As a simplistic example, a legislature could pass a law that says men shall be called women and women shall be called men, but that would not change the essential characteristics of man and women. If homosexual “rights” activists have their way, marriage will become a question of sexual rights and subjective, individual interpretations. Polygamy, incestuous relationships, and even non-sexual relationships might be called marriage, and this would be considered an infringement of personal rights. Since same-sex marriage would represent and equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual behavior, bisexuality would likewise be acceptable. A bisexual might even claim a right to have his menage à trois recognized as a “marriage” No sexual acts could be viewed as unnatural and any kind of sexual relationship could therefore claim government recognition as a matter of equal rights. Based on the principle that complete sexual autonomy is a right that outweighs virtually all others; no rational basis would be left for making any of these distinctions. Sexual freedom would become the most fundamental personal right; the “right” to promiscuous sexual behavior would necessarily be included. Once homosexuality is approved, no sexual behavior could logically be favored or prohibited. At that point, the only grounds for limiting sexual behavior would be public health, public finances, and individual consent. Public health has already become so politicized that the government will not necessarily do what is best to ensure public health; instead, it is likely to do what is politically expedient in response to the interest group with the most political influence. The age of consent, already being questioned in Britain, might be the next restraint to fall. Age-of-consent laws, which vary from state to state, currently prevent minors under a certain age from consenting to sexual relations. This remaining limit on sexual freedom might be vulnerable on the slippery slope after recognition of same-sex marriage. Counterfeiting
Marriage Devalues the Family While those who advocate “gay marriage” typically argue in terms of “equal rights” and “loving, committed relationships,” they are less eager to discuss the impact of public approval of same-sex relationships on families and children. The welfare of children demands a hard look at the very nature of homosexual households. The press for “gay marriage” is no longer merely a private matter between two consenting adults, but a social construction that more significantly affects children and community. Overwhelming evidence confirms that children are best served when they live in intact families with both a mother and father.3 Studies have shown that where the father is absent, children have deficiencies in math and reading.4 Their overall academic performance lags in single-parent homes, whether headed by father or mother.6 Other studies confirm the distinct contributions that a mother and a father make in rearing children.7 The conclusion is clear: The identity and relationship of the two parents –a father and a mother, married to one another—are the significant factors in childrearing, not merely the number of parents. To show that no ill effects arise from growing up in these environments, homosexual rights activists have conducted many studies of children with a homosexual parent or parents. Because of biased sampling and other methodological problems, virtually all such studies have lacked scientific validity.8 Activists for years have denied that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to become homosexual themselves. Yet one recent analysis by homosexual activists made such an admission. Rather that disputing the reality, the authors suggest removing the “heterosexist stigma” that leads people to view the outcome negatively.9 Real differences exist between the behavior of homosexual couples and married heterosexual couples; they are not the mirror image of each other. As Brad Hayton states, homosexuals as parents fail to provide an example for children of the commitment and security of marriage: Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.10 In contrast, married heterosexual couples are largely faithful to their marital vows. According to Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, roughly 85 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands report that they have never been unfaithful.11 In addition, having a mother and a father in the home represents a far superior environment for the rearing of children. In Life Without Father, David Popenoe emphasizes what children learn through observing both parents: In focusing on the independent contributions of males and females, of course, the profound significance for children of the relationship that a father and a mother have with each other should not be overlooked. Children learn about male-female relationships by seeing how their parents relate to each other. Children learn about trust, intimacy, and caring between the sexes. Most importantly, their parents’ relationship provides children with a model of the most meaningful heterosexual relationship that the great majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes.12 "Gay
Marriage" Officially Endorses Homosexual Behavior In public workplaces, government sanction of homosexual behavior would become standard policy. Under civil-rights laws, private business would face even more restrictions in hiring and firing decisions. In public schools, the curriculum would recognize no moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual behavior. Through government regulations, private schools might even be required to teach homosexuality and heterosexuality as moral and social equivalents. Religious and other first amendment freedoms might even be infringed, affecting private associations. These potential consequences are not far-fetched. In New Jersey, the Boy Scouts of America were sued to accept avowed homosexuals as troop leaders. While the Scouts won their case in the U.S. Supreme Court, they remain the target of hostility by homosexual rights activists. But the Scouts are not the only private group facing intense criticism. In the handful of municipalities that recognize same-sex unions, social-service organizations like the Salvation Army are involved in conflicts over whether they must grant “domestic-partner” benefits to employees. If “gay marriage” becomes the law, even religious organizations would be under pressure to modify their proscriptions against homosexual behavior. The danger would be that merely expressing the opinion that homosexuality is wrong—or not the equivalent of heterosexual marriage—might become forbidden “hate speech.” "Gay
Marriage" Promotes Unhealthy Behavior Promiscuity is a serious problem in homosexual circles. While lesbians are, on average, only slightly more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, homosexual males typically have hundreds of sexual partners in their lifetimes.16 Male homosexual promiscuity is the inevitable result of combining an unfettered male sex drive with the absence of any personal or moral limits. This sexual promiscuity overlaps with a variety of emotional, behavioral, and health problems. With promiscuity comes sexually transmitted disease. Homosexual males suffer from a host of sexually transmitted diseases in numbers far out of proportion to the general population, including syphilis and gonorrhea.17 Numerous diseases, including AIDS, which are transmitted far more easily through common homosexual practices, are also prevalent.18 These health effects should be a concern to the public at large. The
Civil Union Campaign Mocks Traditional Morality In their political effort to establish legal recognition of same-sex coupling, activists highlight the small number of homosexual couples whose cohabitation exhibits a superficial resemblance to married couples. The advocates of “gay marriage” hope to conceal the fact that many homosexuals have no use for monogamy or marriage. Homosexuals
Already Enjoy the Same Constitutional Rights of All Sexual orientation, however, fits none of these criteria, and therefore should not be added as a special category of protection in civil rights laws. Nothing in the Constitution protects homosexual behavior. Despite claims to the contrary, no credible evidence suggests that homosexual inclination is inborn. The decision to engage in homosexual acts is a matter of choice, regardless of the origin of the “orientation;” not only can homosexual behavior be changed at will but also abundant evidence suggests that homosexual attraction can be changed as well. Because of its devastating health effects and its effect on the family, homosexual behavior is far from harmless. Civil rights laws were passed in the 1960’s when Americans recognized that black citizens were being systematically denied their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But homosexuals are neither being segregated nor denied the right to be educated, to ride public transit, or to engage in commerce. Laws against sodomy and indecent exposure protect all citizens, including homosexuals. When it comes to marriage, homosexuals also have the same rights as anyone else—namely, the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Allowing men to marry men or allowing women to marry women, however, is not a matter of equal rights, but would involve redefining the very nature of marriage. Such a radical egalitarian concept of equal rights would lead some to argue that recognizing any version (or perversion) of marriage is unfair. Laws regarding marriage do in fact discriminate—reasonably—against those who are not married. Once it is opened to some, it cannot reasonably be denied to others. What would prevent the argument that marriage, as an unlawful preference for certain groups or individuals, should be abolished? Marriage is the most fundamental relationship in the structuring of societies. It is the basis of family and strength of a civilization. Children will be born whether society is stable or not, but no culture has long survived without a fundamental agreement on the importance of marriage and family. Counterfeiting marriage to include homosexual couples not merely a contradiction in terms; it will inevitably lead to the end of marriage as a moral ideal and as the institution that defines all sexual morality. Such a devaluation would be not simply the passing of a quaint social custom; it would spell the end of the social order as Americans have known it. For these and other reasons, marriage must be protected and preserved by all Americans who cherish the institution and the created moral order on which it and this nation rest. The
Case Against Counterfeiting Marriage 2. “The Superstition of Divorce,” The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1920), 4:256. 3. Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584; Elizabeth Thomson et al., “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors,” Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-242; Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45; Pat Fagan, “How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999, p. 13; Dawn Upchurch et al., “Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse,” Family Planning Perspectives 30 (1998): 23-54; Jane Mauldon, “The Effect of Marital Disruption on Children’s Health,” Demography 27 (August 1990): 431-446. 4. Marybeth Shinn, “Father Absence and Children’s Cognitive Development,” Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978): 295-324. 5. Douglas B. Downey, “The School Performance of Children from Single-mother and Single-father Families,” Journal of Family Issues 15 (1994): 129-147. 6. David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problems (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 219; David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 144. 7. See Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us about Same-sex Parenting,” Ethnics and Public Policy Center, Marriage Law Project, January 2001. 8. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 178. 9. Bradley P. Hayton, “To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples,” The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993, p. 9. 10. Robert Michael et al., Sex In America: A Definitive Survey (Warner Books, 1995). 11. Popenoe, Life Without Father, p. 147. 12. Gwat Yon Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59. 13. Island and Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, p. 14. 14. “Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2. 15. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell et al., Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981); Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men.” 16. C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516; and Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 29, 1999; J. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea Among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721; S. P. R. Jebakumar et al., “Value of Screening for Oropharyngeal Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection,” Journal of Clinical Pathology 48 (1995): 658-661. 17. “Bisexuals Serve as “Bridge’ Infecting Women With HIV,” Reuters News Service, July 30, 2000. 18. Paula Ettelbrick,
cited by William B. Rubenstein, “Since When is Marriage a
Path to Liberation?” in Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law (New
York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400. 20. Signorile,
Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins), p. 213. |
 |