God is the author of true marriage,
but this does not resonate well with same-sex marriage activists. The “Adam
& Eve, not Adam & Steve” argument doesn’t go very far. Reflex rebuttals
include, “You have no right to impose your religion on others.” and the familiar
“Separation of Church and State”. When the dialog shuts down I find that
secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion.
Why is the government in the marriage
business? Why does the government grant certain rights at all? Why would one set
of rights be seen as unfair and another fair? To help answer the question it
can be helpful to compare what is perceived to be a problem to what is
perceived to be OK. This can also help to
determine if there is actually any problem at all.
No comparison is perfect, but
comparing voting rights in the context of elections to marriage rights in the
context of procreation comes eerily close. The granting of special rights
normally implies some special responsibility with regard to said rights. If one
is granted the right to vote or the right marry, it follows that you should do
something with that right for the common good.
Voting:
So what can we say about voting
rights? The base rationale for voting is to conduct elections. People given the
right to vote are generally anticipated to actually vote, but no one will force
you and no one will take away your right because of non-participation.
Not everyone is allowed to vote. There
is an age limit because a serious responsibility is involved, and a unique
status called citizenship
is required. The French are not allowed to vote in a U.S. election and neither
are the Chinese. This not because of hatred toward the French and the Chinese,
it is because they are not applicable to the situation.
The sought after outcome is a
functional government. We all know that voting & elections do not guarantee
a functional government, but if we have a one, the elected members will strive
for the common good and everyone ultimately wants that.
Marriage:
So what can we say about marriage rights?
The base rationale for marriage (as far as the government would ever care) is
procreation. People given the right to marry are generally anticipated to
procreate, but no one will force you and no one will take away your right
because of non-participation.
Not everyone is allowed to marry. There
is an age limit because a serious responsibility is involved and a unique
status of a male-female union is required. Close relatives are not allowed to
marry and (in many places still) gays are not allowed to marry. This is not
because of hatred toward close relatives and gays; it is because they are not applicable
to the situation.
The sought after outcome is a
functional family. We all know that marriage & procreation does not guarantee
functional families, but if we have them, the created members will strive for
the common good and everyone ultimately wants that.
Visuals
are most helpful:
And then we get into all the “Buts”…
- But they can adopt.
- Adoption is not procreation; it is dealing with children that are already with us.
- But what about surrogacy and impregnation?
- This is procreation, but that’s all it is. Any one person or group of people can arrange it. If this is how to achieve functional families, then special marriage rights would not be intrinsic for either gay or straight couples.
- But marriage rights have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Childless married couples prove this.
- Just like voting rights have nothing whatsoever to do with elections. People who don’t vote prove this…Really?
- But if you give those who don’t procreate the right to marry, you have to let gays marry.
- And if you give those who don’t vote the right to vote, we have to let the Chinese vote?
- But marriage is about love.
- And voting is about patriotism? Are we after some tangible objective for the common good or just granting rights for the sake of granting rights; rights for the personal happiness and gratification of individuals?
In the last analysis, if there were no
elections, there would be no voting. If there was no procreation, there would
be no marriage. Of course, if there was no procreation we would not be here to
discuss it, but let’s say humans reproduce asexually; would marriage exist at
all? Seems silly, but think about that one. Do you suppose that defining marriage
throughout history and throughout the world the way humans reproduce, as one
man and one woman, is some kind of weird coincidence?
Marriage should be reinforced, not
redefined. Take that into the voting booth the next time you're there.
