Posted by
Playful Walrus on Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:41:44 PM
What is the purpose of licensing marriage?
The state (representing the people) did not invent marriage. It simply has recognized it and has licensed it. But why license it? Because having some recognition and order to marriage is of benefit to society. All other things being equal, it is better for society to have a man and woman who are married to each other for life, and for children to be raised within that marriage. It is of less benefit for a child to be raised without a mother or father, no matter how many people are raising that child. Licensing marriage assists in providing stability in marriage, clarity in divorce and paternity, efficiency in government dealings with children and households and property, and in preventing polygamy and close family members from marrying.
All of society is comprised entirely of males and females. So the basic building block of society is found in the uniting of males and females in marriage. Same-sex pairs, trios, quartets, and so forth – no matter how large, no matter how stable, no matter how loving – do not have a representative of both sexes. Neither one of the sexes is expendable.
Marriage is how society orders itself and perpetuates itself.
Even if all both-sex pairings do not produce children, they are the only ones that can naturally produce children, and the only ones that can raise those children with one parent of both sexes – which is important, because we all have to deal with both males and females in daily life.
Unless you are completely neutrally bisexual, you can’t say with a straight face that there is no difference between men and women in personal relationships, and thus marriage and parenting. Men and women are not interchangeable in this area. No matter how good two women are at mothering, they can’t be fathers.
The state (representing the people) has an interest in how the next generation is raised, as they will be the soldiers, voters, leaders, investors, and workers of the future. In other words, marriage has a direct correlation on the health of the citizenry in many ways.
We, the people, don’t have the same interest in same-sex pairing. Yes, same-sex pairings can also raise children, through adoption and third-party reproduction, but those situations are not ideal, and not everyone is in favor of those things in the first place. We should not encourage same-sex couples (or, single people) to create and raise children without both a mother and father. While they have the freedom to do so, we ought not enshrine a right for them to do so. Indeed, true rights do not obligate others without their consent – true rights are natural, like the right to express yourself. Third party reproduction requires – ta da – a third party, and thus is not a right. If two men were stranded on an island, they would have no chance of perpetuating society. Homosexual acts, unlike heterosexual intercourse, has no benefit to society.
There is always someone who points out that, by choice, infertility, or age, there are marriages that do not produce children. Yes, but both-sex pairings are the only kind that can. You will never find two men or two women who are able to produce children by themselves. When the state issues a marriage license, it can verify sex, but should not have access to verifying fertility or intention to conceive children.
We have chipped away at marriage and the conditions that support it, both legally and culturally: encouraging casual fornication without shame; rampant adultery and a lack of legal consequences for engaging in it; denigrating masculinity and femininity, motherhood and fatherhood, and gender roles; discouraging childrearing by making children liabilities instead of assets and usurping parental authority; shacking up; glorifying parenting as a single; and punishing men for marrying women. Make no mistake – if these things hadn’t come before, we would not find ourselves in this situation now, with the California Supreme Court overreaching and finding new rights for groups that infringe on the rights of others.
Marriage created society. Our legislators did not create marriage. Forcing a change, via judicial fiat, on something that has existed in every culture since the dawn of human history is foolishness. Even in polygamous societies, even in racist societies, marriage was always about uniting the sexes, because uniting the sexes is an inherent to marriage as round is to a circle. Diluting the meaning of the word degrades something that has served society well, and thus isn’t a good idea.
Not all of the societies of the past were “homophobic” – indeed, some were quite encouraging of homosexuality - and yet “same-sex marriage” has always been an oxymoron, even in those societies. We did not stop same-sex marriage. It never existed in the first place. Activists are trying to hijack marriage as a means to an end.
But supposedly, we are more advanced and wiser now, and someone thinks the California constitution mandates this decision. It just isn’t so. A homosexual person has always had the very same right to licensed marriage as the heterosexual person. It makes no difference whether or not someone wants to meet the conditions of obtaining a license. Coupling is voluntary. Thus, there was no need to change the licenses. It is perfectly legitimate to treat different arrangements differently, and a same-sex arrangement is different than a both-sexes arrangement. We do it all of the time with other licenses – if you don’t meet the criteria, you do not get that license.
Marriage – husband and wife – provides the best context for raising children. Homosexual people have to live in the same society as everyone else. They will not be immune to the ill effects of the further breakdown of marriage and family.
I have been tolerant. I have not sought to use force to prevent homosexual people from being with anyone of their choosing. In fact, there are such people who know me who would be shocked to know my feelings in this matter, because they’ve never asked me and I’ve always been polite and kind and fair and respectful in my dealings with them and their partners. I believe they deserve the same protections anyone else; violence, harassment, vandalism targeting them is unacceptable and I condemn it, just as I do such actions against anyone.
But when you force me, as a Californian, to issue you a marriage license when there is no bride or no groom, you are being intolerant of me. You are using the force of law to force me to “support” something I do not accept. You make a mockery of my marriage. You devalue my marriage with a counterfeit.
Bible-believers are part of this society too, and we see marriage as something sacred and one of the few institutions initiated directly by God. We can’t support calling anything but marriage marriage. You might find that some of us would be fine with “civil unions” (California already has them), but the fact remains that from societal perspective, we do not have the same interest in same-sex pairings as we do in uniting both sexes.
So as we kick marriage while it is down, I'm sure we will look the blame the ill results on something else. It is sad and shameful what we are doing to marriage, and how we're letting a tiny few activists to reorder society for the rest of us.