 |
|
|
Issues In Perspective - A SHOWDOWN OVER THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
A SHOWDOWN OVER THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE |
| Published August,22, 2009 |
|
In an April 2009 poll, 31% of respondents over the age of 40 said they supported same-sex marriages. By contrast, 57% under age 40 said they supported it, a 26 point difference. Law professor and ethicist, Robert P. George, poignantly has stated that “We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage.” Throughout the nation there have been referenda and various state legislatures are debating the entire matter of same-sex marriage. This is in many ways democracy at work. However, this whole matter is apparently headed to the courts. After California’s Proposition 8 was passed, defining marriage in that state as the union of a husband and wife, a federal lawsuit was filed seeking to overturn all traditional marriage laws in this nation. George writes: “[To take this to the courts] would be disastrous. . . They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.” George continues: “Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe v. Wade a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires . . . but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees. By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics.” How is this attempt to resolve this matter of marriage in the courts being defended?
- First of all, the defenders of the same-sex position argue that it is a matter of rights. Many who defend same-sex marriage liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws against interracial marriages. The obvious corollary is that those who defend a traditional definition of marriage are bigots! But George convincingly shows that the definition of marriage was not at stake in the Loving case. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists merely were seeking to ban such marriages. Opponents or defenders of these racist laws prohibiting interracial marriages never questioned the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage unites a husband and wife at the most fundamental level and is the only means by which children are conceived. This is certainly at the foundation of what Genesis 2:24-25 refers to as the “one-flesh” principle. The sexual act is what legally has been deemed the consummation of marriage, which symbolizes the biological and emotional union of husband and wife, regardless of the matter of procreation. Law recognizes annulment if there is no consummation of the marriage. Law has never recognized sodomy as consummating a marriage.
- Secondly, George writes persuasively that “If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.” The obvious result of this changing definition of marriage was a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” signed by over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers and community organizers—including such luminaries as Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich and other prominent professors from Yale, Columbia and Georgetown. This statement called for legally recognizing multiple sex partner relationships (they called them “polyamorous”). Their logic is unassailable once the historical definition (rooted in God’s Creation Ordinance) of marriage is overthrown. The weakening of our marriage culture has already had disastrous effects—widespread divorce, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock children. Further, weakened marriages always have disastrous effects on children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society. An act of raw judicial power in redefining marriage will solve nothing. It will only exacerbate an already tragic demise of our marriage culture. It is rather difficult to view this as positive. May God help us!
See Robert P. George in the Wall Street Journal (3 August 2009) and Adam Nagourney in the New York Times (29 April 2009). |
Print |
|
|
