Posted by
Randy on Monday, November 17, 2008 11:43:13 PM
The passage of Proposition 8 in California has stirred up quite a firestorm. Here in Los Angeles, where I live and work, there were protests the day after the election and the two weekends since, and around the country as well. The Proposition simply reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” One wouldn’t think this is such controversial position. It has been the definition of marriage in pretty much every culture, in every time throughout recorded history.
The overriding message coming out of these protests and from the gay community’s advocates on television is that they want equal rights. One can hardly imagine a more American sentiment on its face than that. During a recent broadcast on Larry King Live addressing the issue, panelists arguing for gay marriage hit that note over-and-over. Footage from protests here in LA also appeared on screen throughout the show with "equal" or "equality" showing up on many of the signs protestors were carrying. One man the cameras zoomed in on held a sign quoting directly from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident all men are created equal,” with emphasis on the “equal.”
This belief in equality under the law has been the touchstone of the American political experience and rightly led to equal treatment for ethnic minorities and women. Both groups in fact argued the moral rightness of their case referencing the Declaration of Independence and the timeless truths it contains about God-given, inalienable rights. They maintained that this document, by which the United States came into existence, offered the true North Star to which the laws of the nation, including the Constitution itself, should conform. Law is after all just a statement of morality, “this is right, that is wrong.” Can those advocating for same-sex marriage make the same moral argument? Did the people of California, Arizona, Florida and 27 other states whose citizens have taken action to strengthen marriage laws make the wrong moral judgment by failing to allow same-sex couples the right to marry?
While it’s true all people are to be treated equally under the law with regards to their rights, not everything people want to do is or should be a right. Where the person holding the sign on CNN mentioned above and those arguing the equality of same-sex unions to marriage between a man and woman get it wrong, is in their failure to understand the moral foundation of equality found the Declaration of Independence. It is appears in the words immediately following those on the man’s sign regarding all being created equal: “that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain [emphasis added] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men…” The Constitution enshrines this faith in equal protection under the law for all those basic rights guaranteed to the nation’s citizens. Obviously the Constitution does not and could not mean that everyone's views about what their rights are or should be are equal: there would be no foundation for law.
Governments have to make judgment calls as to what promotes the best, most stable and happiest culture (in the moral sense of the term which the context in the Declaration —i.e. rights being God-given). Families, consisting of one man and one woman, have created the foundation and most basic building block of our society. There is the obvious biological design argument that those who believe in a Creator cannot deny. Additionally, a plethora of studies all reach the same conclusion that children function best and grow up healthiest in families with both a mom and a dad. Each provides a child unique impute and affirmation that those of the same sex simply cannot.
If we as a society were to redefine marriage to meet the demand for equality of those who experience same-sex attraction today, one can already hear the demands of tomorrow. “I want to be married to him and to her, and they’re okay with it.” Or, “I want to marry her and her.” What about someone who says, “My adult niece and I are deeply in love and want to marry.” “My half-brother." “My now adult adopted daughter or son.” Everyone’s beliefs and inclinations are equal, right? The Constitution does guarantee equal protection, doesn’t it?
The point is fairly obvious: if equal rights means that same-sex couples must be included in the definition of marriage, what is the possible justification for denying those who feel attraction to both sexes, or multiple people of the opposite sex, or those within one’s close family structure? Gay advocates will say their standard is two consenting, non-incestuous adults, but what makes this moral standard any better than the others? What is the moral foundation to their claim of equality? Is there a God-given, inalienable right for same-sex couples to marry to which our laws are failing to conform? History and millennia of moral teaching would say not.
While no one can deny the reality of the feelings people may have, we as a culture have deemed that certain relationships are best not given the title marriage. As long as only adults are involved in these relationships, the state will not likely step in to prevent people from doing what they want to do, but it should not give its moral sanction as the equal of traditional marriage either. When it comes to marriage, not all relationships are created equal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to the beliefs in God's Providence and inalienable rights throughout our nation's history.