What Supporters of Traditional Marriage are Fighting For.
November 18, 2008
The human species was created as a set of two distinct, complementary parts: man and woman.
The different roles and appearances of men and woman are grounded in the most basic biology. Testosterone, which gives rise to male secondary sex characteristics like facial hair and prominent musculature, also make men more aggressive, and well-suited to protect and conquer on behalf of their wife and children. Estrogen, which gives rise to female secondary sex characteristics, makes women more nurturing, and suited to building a home.
The institution of marriage is based on the idea that human beings are not left to use their bodies simply for their own pleasure, but have a duty to contribute to the legacy of future generations to come. From a personal perspective of the man and wife, the relationship of a married couple has two dimensions: one for the pleasure of the couple themselves, and a second for the contribution to the rest of society through raising the next generation of children.
In an external sense as well, the institution of marriage consists of two parts. There is the religious component, which unites the couple with their faith and belief in Gd, and desire to carry out His will. Then there is a secular component of marriage, encompassing all the relationships that touch on common-law property rights, such as inheritance, real property law, and debtor creditor law, which unites the married couple with the rest of the secular society as a whole.
In creating a civil marriage right, the state has acted to afford all of the secular law status rights of the institution of marriage, which was developed and maintained as a religious institution through most of human history, even to those people who do not obtain marriages from clergy. In a way, the civil marriage right mirrors the religious institution, in that certain specified persons are authorized to perform marriages in the name of the state, such as a justice of the peace or a ship’s captain, while others are not.
The state cannot usurp the definition of marriage to include relationships never contemplated by the term. The term “marriage” is rooted not only in nearly every religious tradition known to man, but has a fixed, distinct, extremely well-settled definition within the canon of common law on which the laws of the states are based. With “same-sex marriage,” the state steps beyond the role of providing a secular law equivalent to the original, religious marriage. It is as if the state is taking a benign function of presiding over property rights and dramatically expanding that power to commandeer one of the most vital religious institutions, by redefining its central terms. As a result of redefining the institution of marriage, the state incurs upon the freedom of religion and freedom of association for married couples who view the institution as a moral body. The specialness of the bond between man and woman, a holy tradition passed for thousands of years through religious institutions, is now threatened to become a mockery by being made “equal” to a relationship that is the exact antithesis of what the marriage relationship represents to these people.
To put it bluntly: civil rights laws are needed to protect ethnic groups from the vicious lie that they were inferior people. But a democratic society should never be barred from determining some relationships between people as inferior relationships. Morality is the only basis for making cohabitation with minors illegal. Morality is the only basis for outlawing controlled substances that destroy people’s lives. Morality involves the very act of determining which behaviors are intrinsically good and which behaviors are intrinsically corrupt.
Same-sex marriage advocates claim that the issue does not involve morality, only civil rights for a threatened class. They are exactly right, but in the opposite of what they contemplated. Same-sex marriage advocates refuse to acknowledge the right of others to view marriage as an institution grounded in morality. The rights of traditional marriage supporters are being threatened by well-meaning but misguided authorities who wish to impose an alien value system on them by removing morality from the very foundation of their lives.
|
