Who Benefits From Gay Marriage?
By Peter and Helen Evans (07/14/04)
Amid all the braying and trumpeting, pro and con, arising from the dispute over whether the union of same sex couples should be legally recognized by the name "marriage" there is something missing. Let us suppose that the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution (formally defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman) should fail, either to pass Congress or to garner sufficient support among the States, to become the law of the land. Who would actually benefit, and how would they benefit?
One supposes that the obvious answer would be, the gay couples who desire to have their union legally recognized. But same sex couples have had this benefit already for several years in several states. Perhaps not yet a universal acknowledgement of the validity of their union, but an incremental step in the desired direction, surely.
Why press to have their union called "marriage" instead of "civil union"? Evidently it is not a question of legal rights and protections, which are already granted by civil unions. What more in the way of positive benefits do the advocates for same sex "marriage" foresee if they should succeed?
Probably the most persuasive argument is the one claiming that the civil rights of same sex couples are being unfairly restricted by limiting the legal definition of marriage to the "one man, one woman" formula. While this argument does have a certain emotional appeal, it appears to be rather superficial. Indeed, this approach has sparked resistance and resentment among African Americans, the original beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's. Certainly, the later addition of "sexual orientation" to the classes legally protected from discrimination under the Act was a reflection, and a reinforcement, of the growing tolerance of diversity in America.
Actually, it is now possible for same sex couples to "marry" (in the sense that they can publicly solemnize their vows) in a growing number of states, and an even larger number of tolerant churches, all across the fruited plain. They just can't legally call it "marriage," except (for now) in Massachusetts.
In fact, the only thing that same sex couples can't do is procreate. This will remain the primordial, tough-love truth regardless of how many lawyers, activist judges and politicians sympathize with their cause. However, legal adoption is becoming increasingly possible for same sex couples, so even the biological obstacle to being a "family" is overcome. Thus, every obstacle to same sex union has been overcome, at least in principle. The "full faith and credit" clause (article 4, section 1) of the Constitution will serve to 'nationalize' the legal precedents established by the various states.
What more is to be gained, and by whom? Let's consider the examples of Holland and Sweden, two countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for some years now. Beyond the stereotypes of the dope-smoking Dutch and the free-loving Swedes, these countries are characterized by high taxes, high prices, intrusive, welfare-state governments and declining birth-rates. Of course, given the fact that this was all true before same sex marriage became legal, we will not pretend to conclude that this latest concession to homosexual activism was the sufficient cause for the expansion of government.
However, the condition of the United States is still economically, reproductively and constitutionally, far from being on a par with the crumbling socialist states of Old Europe. Our Constitution is mute regarding the definition of marriage, which was apparently, although not explicitly, considered self-evident by the Framers. Indeed, the nature of marriage as between a man and a woman was everywhere considered an obvious fact centuries before it became 'institutionalized' by the gradual development of legal structures.
Whereas we usually think that the social 'unit' in our democratic republic is the free individual, we must acknowledge that the individual suffers from the identical limitation as the same sex couple. It is incapable of reproducing itself. The heterosexual couple is the real, viable unit in our society. Perhaps this is a bitter pill for the ideology of individual-ism to swallow, but the reason the "traditional family" is traditional is simply because it works.
Unfortunately, the traditional family is presently under attack, and only indirectly by the gay-rights lobby. No, the traditional family is under attack by left-leaning government programs, armed with the deepest pockets and draped in the banner of the best, most compassionate intentions. Whether through laziness or ambition or a simple recognition of obvious short-term incentives, a growing number of women have chosen to "marry the government" and accept the tantalizing offer of housing, training, child-support, health care, food stamps and day-care. Given the option of the sometimes unreliable support of a merely human, perhaps absent husband, this may seem a reasonable choice.
If we allow marriage to become just another contract between consenting adults, subject to government regulation, we will have lost of the last, non-governmental, independent unit of society. By our default, the only social unity remaining will obviously be big government. The winner in this scuffle will be the Leviathan-in-waiting. Then we will begin in earnest the fatal slide into socialist slavery.
We must hope that our elected representatives have the right combination of courage, moral clarity and altruism to resist the temptation dangled before them by the short-sighted self-interest of the gay lobby.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
