Gay Marriage - Part II
As the debate on gay marriage in our country continues, and as more and more politicians find themselves having “conversions” in their thinking on the subject, I thought it time to add a few thoughts to my epic-length “Gay Marriage” article from a few months ago.
Since that article, I hope, provided a fairly definitive discussion of what the Bible has to say on the subject, I want to focus here on the practical ramifications of gay marriage on our secular society. Although a card-carrying member of the Christian faith, I see very little reason to object to the larger, secular society’s slant towards approving gay marriage. Here’s why:
First, non-Christians have no reason to live by Christian standards. In fact, given the way many Christians behave, they can be forgiven for thinking Christian standards aren’t standards, but, more like suggestions for behavioral options! “I’ll take a little heterosexual marriage faithfulness and a side order of cheating my business partner. What? Oh, you’re out of cheating? Okay, then I’ll substitute coveting my neighbor’s possessions.”
Second, stated plainly, why should a homosexual couple be prohibited from enjoying the same tax advantages, legal property rights and other perks of marriage granted to heterosexual couples by our benevolent overlords in Congress? While it is true that these perks have been made into the law of the land in an effort to encourage people to establish stable homes for themselves and their children, how is that any less an objective for homosexual couples? Why, one might ask, was this kind of social engineering ever a matter for government action at all? Nonetheless, the government has acted and, as with most government actions, there is now a considerable constituency that relies upon that action. Married heterosexuals aren’t about to give up their legally-mandated perks without a fight so we can either expand that constituency to include homosexual couples or suffer through a couple of really hostile election cycles as politicians attempt to wend their unthinking way through a maze of civil discord. Better, I think, to just get on with homosexual marriage.
Third, some conservatives, Christian and otherwise, object to the notion of gay marriage because it will result in further erosion of the definition of marriage—the “slippery slope” argument. They are, of course, correct. Once gay marriage is approved, it will take about five minutes before a new “civil rights” movement is thrust into the spotlight by the slavering hounds of the press crying for the right to marry multiple partners, no doubt followed by a movement to promote marriage between a human and their pets, etc. Really, there is no practical end to what an aggrieved, and very silly, human race can dream up. However, this is not a reason to disregard the desires of the 3 or 4 percent of the population that want to marry someone of the same sex. As my mom said, “Tommy, I’ll let you have a juice bar before dinner, but you’re not going to get a whole bag of cookies to eat. It’ll spoil your dinner.” So it is with this argument. Most people can, and probably will, agree to gay marriage while still objecting to additional modifications of the historic definition of marriage. Like my mom, there is some play in our society, but we are not made entirely of elastic. After all, if everybody got those marriage tax breaks for every kind of union, we’d see unacceptable further increases in the deficit!
Fourth, many object to the idea of gay marriage because they are concerned that gay couples will have, or adopt, children. It is their belief that children benefit from living in a two-parent, heterosexual home. Having been the product of such a home, I am fond of the arrangement. However, as the 2010 Census makes clear, about twenty percent of children now live in single parent homes, far from the two-parent ideal. The same census makes clear that approximately twenty-five percent of gay couples have children living with them. So, the assumed ideal of children being raised by a heterosexual couple is already not the case for nearly a quarter of the child population in the US. Obviously, this doesn’t imply that gay couples should be raising children, it just means that they are raising children. Given the quality of parenting decisions made by heterosexual couples I’ve observed (and my own failings as a father), I find it hard to say that homosexuals will do worse. Besides, there is little that a free society can do to stop gay couples from having children if they want them. Lesbians, in particular, can simply get pregnant and, voila, they have children to tend.
Additional thought - Perhaps because of the stigma associated with homosexuality, I have seen some gay couples show a particular affinity for orphans with disabilities. They are willing to adopt these children and care for them when the larger heterosexual society, in the main, would rather not think about them. This is a good thing. Who wouldn't wish for these children to have a loving home over institutionalization?
Fifth, Christians who object to gay marriage may do so because they see a yawning gulf of legal problems arising if gay marriage is legalized—and they are probably correct. For example, if a conservative Christian businessman or businesswoman is asked to provide a service to a gay couple in preparation for their wedding and objects to doing so on the grounds that their religion doesn’t support gay marriage, a lawsuit is likely to follow. Worse yet, the gay couple, newly empowered with their “rights” are likely to spout off to the press about how disrespected they feel as a result of the “hateful” position of the businessperson. This kind of economic assault has already happened without gay marriage even being legalized (think Chick-fil-A). How much worse will it be when it is? There will be some very expensive and difficult legal battles before the nonet known as “John Roberts and the Supremes” gets ahold of it. Who wants that? This could be avoided if the laws permitting gay marriage were written in such a manner that they provided clear protection of the religious businessperson from such suits, but that would be an unusually well-written piece of legislation.
Finally, when all is said and done, this is America, the land of the free. If we really believe that, then we’re going to mind our own business and let free people love and live with whomever they choose. It will be incumbent upon gay couples to act in a manner that is as responsible as their heterosexual counterparts. Given the low level of responsibility that entails, they shouldn’t find it too difficult!
Thomas A. Hall
Since that article, I hope, provided a fairly definitive discussion of what the Bible has to say on the subject, I want to focus here on the practical ramifications of gay marriage on our secular society. Although a card-carrying member of the Christian faith, I see very little reason to object to the larger, secular society’s slant towards approving gay marriage. Here’s why:
First, non-Christians have no reason to live by Christian standards. In fact, given the way many Christians behave, they can be forgiven for thinking Christian standards aren’t standards, but, more like suggestions for behavioral options! “I’ll take a little heterosexual marriage faithfulness and a side order of cheating my business partner. What? Oh, you’re out of cheating? Okay, then I’ll substitute coveting my neighbor’s possessions.”
Second, stated plainly, why should a homosexual couple be prohibited from enjoying the same tax advantages, legal property rights and other perks of marriage granted to heterosexual couples by our benevolent overlords in Congress? While it is true that these perks have been made into the law of the land in an effort to encourage people to establish stable homes for themselves and their children, how is that any less an objective for homosexual couples? Why, one might ask, was this kind of social engineering ever a matter for government action at all? Nonetheless, the government has acted and, as with most government actions, there is now a considerable constituency that relies upon that action. Married heterosexuals aren’t about to give up their legally-mandated perks without a fight so we can either expand that constituency to include homosexual couples or suffer through a couple of really hostile election cycles as politicians attempt to wend their unthinking way through a maze of civil discord. Better, I think, to just get on with homosexual marriage.
Third, some conservatives, Christian and otherwise, object to the notion of gay marriage because it will result in further erosion of the definition of marriage—the “slippery slope” argument. They are, of course, correct. Once gay marriage is approved, it will take about five minutes before a new “civil rights” movement is thrust into the spotlight by the slavering hounds of the press crying for the right to marry multiple partners, no doubt followed by a movement to promote marriage between a human and their pets, etc. Really, there is no practical end to what an aggrieved, and very silly, human race can dream up. However, this is not a reason to disregard the desires of the 3 or 4 percent of the population that want to marry someone of the same sex. As my mom said, “Tommy, I’ll let you have a juice bar before dinner, but you’re not going to get a whole bag of cookies to eat. It’ll spoil your dinner.” So it is with this argument. Most people can, and probably will, agree to gay marriage while still objecting to additional modifications of the historic definition of marriage. Like my mom, there is some play in our society, but we are not made entirely of elastic. After all, if everybody got those marriage tax breaks for every kind of union, we’d see unacceptable further increases in the deficit!
Fourth, many object to the idea of gay marriage because they are concerned that gay couples will have, or adopt, children. It is their belief that children benefit from living in a two-parent, heterosexual home. Having been the product of such a home, I am fond of the arrangement. However, as the 2010 Census makes clear, about twenty percent of children now live in single parent homes, far from the two-parent ideal. The same census makes clear that approximately twenty-five percent of gay couples have children living with them. So, the assumed ideal of children being raised by a heterosexual couple is already not the case for nearly a quarter of the child population in the US. Obviously, this doesn’t imply that gay couples should be raising children, it just means that they are raising children. Given the quality of parenting decisions made by heterosexual couples I’ve observed (and my own failings as a father), I find it hard to say that homosexuals will do worse. Besides, there is little that a free society can do to stop gay couples from having children if they want them. Lesbians, in particular, can simply get pregnant and, voila, they have children to tend.
Additional thought - Perhaps because of the stigma associated with homosexuality, I have seen some gay couples show a particular affinity for orphans with disabilities. They are willing to adopt these children and care for them when the larger heterosexual society, in the main, would rather not think about them. This is a good thing. Who wouldn't wish for these children to have a loving home over institutionalization?
Fifth, Christians who object to gay marriage may do so because they see a yawning gulf of legal problems arising if gay marriage is legalized—and they are probably correct. For example, if a conservative Christian businessman or businesswoman is asked to provide a service to a gay couple in preparation for their wedding and objects to doing so on the grounds that their religion doesn’t support gay marriage, a lawsuit is likely to follow. Worse yet, the gay couple, newly empowered with their “rights” are likely to spout off to the press about how disrespected they feel as a result of the “hateful” position of the businessperson. This kind of economic assault has already happened without gay marriage even being legalized (think Chick-fil-A). How much worse will it be when it is? There will be some very expensive and difficult legal battles before the nonet known as “John Roberts and the Supremes” gets ahold of it. Who wants that? This could be avoided if the laws permitting gay marriage were written in such a manner that they provided clear protection of the religious businessperson from such suits, but that would be an unusually well-written piece of legislation.
Finally, when all is said and done, this is America, the land of the free. If we really believe that, then we’re going to mind our own business and let free people love and live with whomever they choose. It will be incumbent upon gay couples to act in a manner that is as responsible as their heterosexual counterparts. Given the low level of responsibility that entails, they shouldn’t find it too difficult!
Thomas A. Hall
|
|
|