Monday, July 1, 2013

Gay Marriage: Not Progressive, Fair, or Accessible

With "gay wedding bells" ringing across the land about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, the battle, the digression over homosexuality, marriage, and the proper scope of the state has not changed for the better. The two rulings handed down by the Supreme Court invalidated a popular initiative to amend the California state constitution. On the other hand, the Supreme Court said nothing about other states which have barred gay marriage. Thirty-seven states still have laws on their books which recognize marriage as between one man and one woman, yet how long those laws will remain on the books remains to be seen.

For whom the bell tolls on "gay marriage", the sound echoes quite hollow, not holy, and certain not with any wholeness, over the land. The flawed argument justifying gay marriage have focused on progress, fairness, and access.

Redefining marriage is not a progressive sentiment at all. In fact, the venal conduct of "anyone sleeping with anything" draws from an ancient strain of values, in which men and women slept with whatever they wanted to. In many tribal societies, and even the "more civilized" Ancient Greeks, sexual behavior among adults and children was considered acceptable. With the rise of the Judea-Christian tradition, certainly, the beauty and wisdom of marriage between one man and one woman became normal. Yet even the pagan emperor Trajan shut down bath-houses in Rome, as the sexual promiscuity among men caused a rampant and disturbing spread of disease, dysfunction, and death. Fast forward to the 1980's AIDS epidemic, and epidemiologists wanted to call the contagion GRID: "Gay related immuno-deficiency syndrome" because of its virulent prevalence among homosexuals. Even today, the rising tide of evidence exposes the proliferation of disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexual conduct. "Gay marriage" is not progressive at all.

Marriage is not about fairness. "Marriage equality" is a nonsensical construct, like "legitimate rape" or "we must suspend the rules of the free market to save it". Yet this doctrine of fairness has invaded marriage, rending it practically meaningless. Marriage is an institution, a sacrament beyond a marriage license, the holding of hands, the saying of "I Do!", nor is it a battleground for individuals to express themselves and remake the proper order of things. Marriage creates connections which transcend (not transgress) time and eternity itself. Fairness, which speaks to a parity of two things, cannot integrate the timeless and timely. Two men cannot form such a union. Two women cannot embrace and exchange the mastery of marriage, which from the beginning was intended for one man and one woman. Nor can an adult even mimic, let alone establish, this connection with a child.
Yet pundits left and right are now "coming out" for gay marriage. Liberal-tarians (liberals who pretend to be libertarian) like Andrew Sullivan have been advocated for gay marriage for nearly two decades. Along with liberals, now Republicans US Senator Bob Portman of Ohio and conservative Michael Barone support gay marriage. Regarding "faux-conservative" Sullivan, he has acquiesced to having multiple partners. Where's the holy matrimony in that? And speaking of "holy", the term at its core means "set apart" or "different." Marriage allows two people to be set apart to each other, and each other only.

Marriage is not about access, but rather contracting unfettered desires, which left unchecked create more harm than good. Consider the consequences of welfarism in inner cities, which reward women for having children out of wedlock, and reward men for fathering children with multiple women, yet never stay around. The harms to society, to our communities, and to these "unwanted" children is incalculable. As a matter of biology and human nature, sexuality unchannelled is sexuality unhinged. Outside of the wonderful identification between man and woman, people will succumb to any combination (remember, homosexuality is not progressive at all). During oral arguments on the same-sex marriage issue, "Wise Latina" Maria Sotomayor shared grave reservations about redefining of marriage from. Where does one draw the line on polygamy, or pedophilia? Her concerns resurrect long-standing arguments about polygamy and the redefinition of marriage in the United States. In 1854, the Republican Party was founded on two platforms: the abolition of slavery, and the abolition of polygamy. Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should consider becoming a Republican following her frank admission on this issue.

Marriage is not about fairness. Gay marriage is not progressive, and only a man and a woman (not two men, not two women, animals, objects, or minors) enter that blessed union. Two people get married, they engage each other, they become one flesh: that's the only "gay marriage". The intimacy of marriage and sex cannot be redefined, like throwing away a piece of old paper, or getting a new edition of a book. Marriage is a mature transition, and so is choosing not to be married. The notion that a court of law, legal mandates, or even popular sentiment can radically redefine marriage betrays the immaturity of our modern polity, inwhich "progress", "fairness" and access have become the all-hallowed buzzwords to justify or condemn government actions.


  1. I am against gay marriage too! But not by swinging a sword over the constitution and the legal process. DOMA was too draconian. I think that the Fed gov't should honor state contracts including gay marriage ones. Otherwise you are entering murky waters of nasty legal disputes and accusations of unequal protection under the law. But all this is a half-measure (as Ludwig Von Mises would put it)
    In the long view, marriage should be completely de-statized. If some liberal Protestant kook wants to marry a dog to a drag-queen then others shouldn't be able to come in and beat them with sticks.
    For Christians to support gov't licensed straight marriage as some holy sacrament is utterly hypocritical. For one thing the state doesn't have the right to tell others how to marry! For the state to follow the marital teachings of say, John Chrysostom over pro-gay Protestants would be an a betrayal of the constitution as it would be implicitly elevating the religious teachings of some group vs. another (basically violating the first amendment)

  2. Even if the government is willing to become a Christian theocracy and ultimately subject itself to doctrinal interpretations of some men. Why should they choose anti-gay marriage ones over pro-gay marriage ones. After all some Reformed folks would be happy to take a sledgehammer to the statue of the Blessed Mother. Should the gov't let them violate the property rights of Papists just because they stomp their feet?
    Not to mention that many Reformers had maniacal tendencies when given political power, basically bordering on F├╝hrerprinzip. According to the rule of law, these people should have been in jail.