Printer-friendly version Reader Comments

Pretending we can alter a basic social institution with no ill effects is just that - pretending.

M.D. HARMON April 17, 2009

If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times from advocates for same-sex marriage: "How can letting Bob and Bill get married affect Bruce and Brenda's union?"

An unanswerable query? Not so fast, boys and girls.

Books have been written on this issue, so it's not possible here to be definitive about it.

But, with seven unelected judges imposing same-sex marriage on Iowa (where voters had prohibited it and polls show only 26 percent of residents support it), and with Vermont's lawmakers adopting it over their governor's veto, and with the issue coming up for a public hearing in Augusta next Wednesday, it deserves some attention.

And those who pose the question are only pretending that there are no answers to it.

First, let's consult Hadley Arkes, professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College. In a column last Tuesday, Arkes noted that the Iowa Supreme Court seemed not to consider that humans are divided into two sexes: men and women.

And thus, "The bringing forth of offspring marks the telos, or natural purpose, of sex. Something needed to be said about marriage as something good in principle as a framework for the begetting of children, even if no children are begotten in the marriage.

"Is it better to have children spawned by casual matings, or better to have them come into the world in a framework of commitment, a framework in which the parents have foregone their freedom to quit this association as it suits their convenience?"

Same-sex marriage advocates, of course, say that those are the same benefits they seek. Social science studies, however, are clear: Children raised without either a father or a mother (most often a father, in our divorce-prone culture) fare far more badly than those raised in families with a mother and a father in terms of life achievement and staying out of trouble with the law.

But when the very nature of marriage is ignored, the judges "may conclude, as they did in Iowa, that this preference for one man and one woman is but an 'historical prejudice,' which can no longer explain itself."

In the same way, Arkes adds, "the moral reasons underlying any of the laws – the laws on homicide, the laws on neglect of children – can be converted into religious beliefs and barred under the separation of church and state. ... Relativism becomes, in these short steps, the operating mode of the law."

Thus, this highly experienced law professor notes, same-sex marriage not only overturns the connection between parenthood and marriage, it opens the door to many more changes for the worse in other laws.

Next, ponder the effect of same-sex marriage on other laws: An October 2008 study by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (www.becketfund.org) surveyed more than 1,000 state anti-discrimination laws "to assess how those laws would affect conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage" if it gained legal sanction.

The conclusion? "People and institutions who have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws – laws never intended for that purpose.

"Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples."

The report says lawmakers should amend state statutes to provide "robust exemptions for those with religious or other conscientious objections to same-sex marriage."

OK, but not approving same-sex marriage would also preserve those rights – and protect...