What’s Wrong with “Gay Marriage”?

For those promoting it, it’s a matter of equal rights – as if being able to call oneself “married” as opposed to something else is a question of equality.

There is certainly an argument that individuals of whatever sexual orientation who proclaim their desire to be committed to one another should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits available to traditional marriage partners.  Rights of inheritance and medical decision-making are examples. And, in fact, anyone can accomplish such tasks by agreement with another.

Until recent years, activists for homosexuals focused on obtaining recognition for civil unions intended to codify the benefits already statutorily available to married heterosexual couples.

But such activists now want something more:  the right to have the term “marriage” applied to same sex unions.  Considering that legal benefits can be achieved by other means, why is there a fixation on a label? 

I suggest the answer lies in the very understandable desire to have societal approval for how one chooses to live.  It is a psychological quest, not a matter of civil rights. 

As such, the matter might seem to be of little importance to those who are not homosexual.  But plainly, the fact that voters across the country have consistently endorsed the view that marriage is only between a man and a woman suggests that other factors are involved. 

A significant block of gay marriage opponents view the proposal from a religious perspective.  The Old Testament, after all, treats homosexual behavior as a sin (Leviticus 18:22). 

From an historical vantage point, a traditional marriage –for reasons of power, economic advantage or love -- has always been between a male and a female.

Given biological facts of life, marriage has long served as an essential element of social stability by providing children with a mother and father whose presence usually aids in their development. 

Accordingly, if we accept the idea that traditional marriage is important to a healthy society, the question must be whether “same sex marriage” serves, detracts, or has no effect upon that objective?

That is a very important query in light of the dismal state of marriage in modern America.  Approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the number of unmarried heterosexuals cohabiting has increased twelvefold in the last fifty years, for example.  As discouraging as those statistics are, it is hardly desirable to embark on policies which may further weaken marriages as a preferred status for living together and raising children. 

Yes, “married” is a term.  But labels do matter.  We choose to apply – or wish to apply – those which put us in a positive light. And so gays want to be able to use the label, too.   

Will allowing homosexual couples to “marry” further dampen the appeal of marriage for heterosexuals?

I don’t know. But as a society we ought to ponder the question.  From a conservative perspective, we shouldn’t rush pell-mell into expanding the definition of marriage without first seeking the answer.

Tradition deserves respect -- even when it no longer makes sense to some.  Traditions may exist for reasons critics don’t comprehend.  In this case, there may be unintended consequences down the road.  I don’t know.  But I do know one thing.  Unless the reasons for overturning a centuries old tradition are clear, don’t.