What is Marriage?

The subject of our readings this week is more controversial in nature and has caused me to ponder deeply about what I would like to say in this post. As you might be guessing, this week we read about and discussed the recent (and ongoing) issue over the definition of marriage and whether or not it should be changed and expanded to include same-sex couples.

To those who believe that marriage ought to extend to same-sex couples:

I would like to say that I understand that this is an emotional and sensitive topic, and that there may be some of you who will hate me and disregard what I say simply because I disagree with you. But it is my hope that I can explain the position of those who oppose same-sex marriage in a way that will persuade many of you at least respect this point of view, even if you continue to disagree with it. I also understand that many of you believe that people who oppose same-sex marriage must be either prejudiced, hateful, ignorant, or close-minded. I'm not going to say that there isn't anybody on this side who is one or more of those things, because I know there is, but please don't immediately judge everybody who holds this viewpoint in that way. I have nothing personally against LGBT people. I do not judge them or think I am in any way better or more deserving of love or whatever else than any of them. My opposition to allowing them to marry is not hateful or homophobic in any way, and is based entirely on my worry about what effect it will have on the institution of marriage.

Believe it or not, there is a rational argument to be made for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, that has nothing to do with hating gays/lesbians, and goes beyond "because God said so." I hope you will bear with me as I try to explain this position as I understand it.

First of all, I hope we can all agree that words are important, powerful, and nuanced. Words are vehicles of thought and emotion. Consider how the two opposing sides of the abortion argument call themselves "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." It's an interesting choice for both to be "pro"-something, isn't it? Wouldn't it be clearer to call themselves "Pro-abortion" and "Anti-abortion"? And yet both sides chose to nickname their point of view in a way that makes their side sound positive and the other side, by default, negative. We use words and names of things like this all the time (especially in politics). I could come up with many more examples, but what I want you to understand from this is that words have power to influence the way we think and perceive the things they describe.

The issue of marriage that we have right now is not so much an issue of equal rights as it is a debate over what the definition of marriage is (or ought to be). If you think about it, not allowing gay people to marry the same sex was not discrimination, because (at least up until countries began changing their definition of marriage) nobody was allowed to marry the same-sex. It's not that heterosexuals had a right to marry the same sex that homosexuals did not--no one was allowed to. It was restricted across the board, regardless of whether you were black, white, gay, straight, or what-have-you. It didn't have to do with discrimination--it was just adhering to what the definition of marriage is.

So why is marriage only between a man and a woman, then? Why shouldn't we extend the definition of marriage to allow men to marry men and women to marry women?

Before I get to that, I think it is important to ask, "why is government involved in marriage at all?" Is it because we need the government's seal of approval to have a long-term, committed relationship? Do we need the government to tell us if we can love and spend the rest of our life with someone of our choosing? Why is marriage a social institution and not just a private one in the first place?

I have not seen a better, more sensible answer than the following one, given by Ryan T. Anderson in his article "Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?":

"The state cares about marriage because of marriage’s connection with children and its ability to unite children with their mother and father. After all, whenever a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question for law and culture is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so. Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them."

Furthermore, he says, "[Marriage] is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman, and on the sociological reality that children benefit from having a mother and a father. As the act that unites spouses can also create new life, marriage is especially apt for procreation and family life. Uniting spouses in these all-encompassing ways, marriage calls for all-encompassing commitment: permanent and exclusive."

That's the big deal, guys. "Marriage" exists primarily for children, which is just about the only good reason for government involvement in the marriage business--it has an interest in the well-being of the children a man-woman sexual relationship could potentially produce. I know it sounds crazy, because unfortunately children are not the popular focus of marriage anymore in the United States. As I referenced in my first blog post, one study shows that nearly 70% of Americans believe the main purpose of marriage is something other than having children. But that doesn't change the fact that children are the reason marriage exists, and that many children are now suffering because that's something we as a country have forgotten.

So I want to ask you, what message does it send about the purpose of marriage when the definition of marriage is changed to include couples who are anatomically incapable of reproducing? If people are allowed to marry the same sex, then how on earth can we still say that marriage exists for the benefits to children and society caused by linking children to their biological parents, and parents to each other?

I hope you are beginning to see why it is not such a simple thing to ask that same-sex couples be allowed to "marry." You simply cannot do so without changing the meaning of marriage, and indeed throwing out the entire main purpose of marriage. Sure, you're still left with love and romance, but again I ask what interest government has in validating or supporting a person's love life?

We as a country are suffering from high rates of divorce and births outside of marriage, and consequently all of the social detriments they are associated with. What we really need is a renewal of interest in strengthening marriages and restoring family values.

Don't forget the importance of words and definitions. Redefining marriage in a way that promotes adults' selfish interests at the expense of children's is going to hurt us more than it is going to help us.

The effects of redefining marriage will not appear overnight. It may take several decades to understand what impact this ruling will have, just as it took decades for us to see the long-term effects of no-fault divorce. 

There is more that could be said on this subject, but I believe I've rambled on long enough. Again, I do not expect to have changed anyone's mind on this subject. It seems to me that everyone is pretty firmly situated in whichever camp they've chosen, for one reason or another, and there is not enough evidence yet to concretely determine who is "right." But I sincerely hope that I've made enough sense for there to be mutual respect between us as we agree to disagree.

In closing I would like to share with you two of the sources I've read/viewed in preparation for this blog. One is "An Open Letter [to Justice Kennedy] from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent." What I love about this letter is that it is from the perspective of someone who grew up in same-sex parent household, is clearly not anti-gay (because she loves both her gay mother and her mother's partner), and yet opposes same-sex marriage.

The other is an 11-minute video of Ryan Anderson (whom I quoted above) making a more complete case of the argument I was trying to explain above.