The answer is: it doesn't hurt my marriage (if I were married of course!). But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex partnerships will hurt society and potentially my freedom. Government support of traditional marriage implicitly supports the particular family structure that emerges from such marriages. The structure of mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother and so on is the natural institution that flows from the foundation of marriage. When such marriages remain intact, this 'family tree' can become quite large where each branch has a blood tie to other branches of the tree with a resulting natural affection and concern for each member's welfare. To quote Professor Robert P. George from Princeton, "This structure is the original and best department of health, education and welfare."
If government were to support gay marriage, they would essentially be withdrawing their support of this traditional family structure. Children are not a natural extension of gay relationships, so if government supported the formation of gay 'families' they would be supporting the idea that it is perfectly healthy and morally neutral to willfully bring children into a non-traditional family setting. They would essentially be saying that there is no ideal family structure. It is true that single mothers exist, gay couples end up with children from previous relationships or through invitro, and other alternative family situations arise. But should government be encouraging these scenarios? Are we really to believe that a position of neutrality would produce no ill effects on society as a whole?
As indicated in my previous post 'A Defense of Traditional Marriage', such natural institutions as the traditional family are critical if we are to maintain the American ideal of limited government. As the family structure breaks down, someone must step in to fill the role. Politicians are only too happy to fill this role as they can secure power in governmental spheres by promising to take care of the victims. This leads to the deprivation of liberty in various forms. I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come most easily to mind:
1) Property rights violations. Politicians begin participating in schemes of wealth redistribution to care for the poor and the needy. Although they are trumpeted as acts of fairness, these schemes are really the inevitable result of a people who have failed to take care of their own.
2) Loss of religious liberty. Marriage and the traditional family structure are pre-political institutions. Government did not invent marriage, but government has chosen to promote and recognize this natural institution in every culture we are aware of. When a legal definition is pitted against a pre-political and religious definition, attacks on religious liberty are certain to follow. Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston. This group was forced out of the adoption business because church leaders refused to allow adoption to gay couples. Rather than compromise their religious convictions, they gave up their adoption license. Gay marriage activists have, and will use anti-discrimination laws to whip the masses into line.
I would appreciate it if anyone can challenge my assertions, or post arguments supporting the idea of gay marriage. If I am missing something, I would like to understand the other side of the argument more clearly.
Posts
