“Gay Marriage” and Chicken Nuggets

“Gay Marriage” – adding homosexual pairings to the legal classification of “marriage” - is strongly opposed by most Americans. The massive August 1, 2012 rallies at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation openly demonstrated that there is a strong support for the traditional family advocated by most churches and the founder of Chick-fil-A.

Despite this clear majority view, the tide of effective power seems to be washing away the definition of marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” Many homosexuals are angry with the slowness of “reform”; but, on the majority side, the anger lies in the destruction of traditional values. Several states have held elections to promote or reject homosexual marriage, and the preponderant result has been to reject the creation of laws that include homosexual pairings as “marriage.” After losing these elections, the advocates of this change have resorted to the courts, and have been successful in throwing out the traditional defenses of “marriage.” These courts have ruled that governmental recognition of “married” couples cannot discriminate against couples that are made up of people who choose to bond with others of the same sex. This has established a beachhead, and those who insist on changing the law are pressing their invasion against tradition.

---

The United States Constitution grants a limited set of powers to the federal government, and reserves the rest to the states and the People. These powers cannot be used in a discriminatory manner. In recent years there has been a clamor to include “sexual orientation” to the classes that cannot be treated differently by government. This means that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual, and marriage must encompass both. So, let’s look at that. First of all, what role does government have in defining marriage and making laws affecting it. Many argue that the government has no role in marriage at all. They rely on the Constitution’s prohibition against making laws relating to religious practices. Their view is that marriage is merely a religious tradition, so it is improper for governments to define and regulate marriage at all. After all, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”) So - why does the state have any concern with “marriage?” (Outside their propensity to meddle in every phase of human affairs, that is…) The First Amendment does prevent using the Bible, or other religious doctrine directly as the source for any law. So the doctrine that God defines marriage cannot be the foundation for any law. Others accept that government has a power to establish marriage, and make its rules. But they look to the role of religions in marriage, and argue that government cannot accept the religious doctrine that limits marriage to “the union of one man and one woman.” The problem is the idea that marriage is solely a religious doctrine. That view is shallow and intellectually lazy. The second question that has to be explored, then, is “What is ‘marriage?’” The surface definition is that it is the act of committing a man and a woman to a permanent relationship that includes joint residence and exclusive sexual relations. If only those two criteria – residence and sex - suffice to make a “marriage,” then it seems reasonable that homosexual couples are perfectly equal to normal couples, and so it makes no sense to disallow both to “marry” legally. But is that the whole character of “marriage?” No. Marriage is the name we give to the creation of a human reproduction team. Until this fundamental nature of the institution is understood, we will not make useful policy regarding marriage. What elements make up a successful human reproduction team? The biological start requires donors of egg and sperm, and a womb to incubate the fetus. Upon birth, the upbringing requires care, formative influences, and resources. For starting the child, the process provided by nature is the most reliable – and it happens to involve sexual relations. Only heterosexual teams satisfy this function. After birth, the history of most mammalian species shows the advantage of pairs with complementary roles in caring for and providing resources for the offspring. This, too, means heterosexual team members. The team joined by marriage should be stable over a long period, as the children grow. It has also proven useful to extend the pairing to provide a reserve of support in raising the grandchildren, and for mutual support of the couple as they journey into old age. Back to the question: “What business doe the government have in making laws regarding marriage?” Government has a legitimate role for making rules that support the needs of a human reproduction team. Rules for joint ownership of property, child support, division of assets and duties in case of divorce and inheritance are all appropriate state government powers. Even the process for registering the names of children, and for establishing parenthood for medical and other purposes are proper legal functions. These rules all serve to preserve the community and protect the children. They have nothing to do with religion, and are not prohibited by the First Amendment. Some of these processes can be managed by individuals, with simple cooperation, or making contracts and wills. But most find it easier to rely on laws forming a common framework to rely on without creating their own rules from scratch. It is also easier to resolve disagreements and liabilities in courts when the rules apply uniformly throughout the society. So, the states – not the federal government - do have a role in making rules for establishing and maintaining marriage. Given the social utility of stable families, it is appropriate for the laws to be formed so they will encourage the formation and preservation of marriages. Outside of laws relating to marriage, other types of relationships exist. Here is where homosexual couples fall. Contracts and wills are as freely available to them as to anyone. Government will enforce their agreements. There is no need to label these arrangements as “marriage,” nor to provide legal incentives to enter into them. To get the human reproduction unit started, human nature requires an event that jolts the couple with sufficient force to lodge in their consciousness that they have accepted fundamental changes in their span of choices and burdens. That is where the traditional marriage ceremony offered by the church comes in. The ceremonious gathering, the exchange of solemn vows, and the presence their friends and families - and God – impress the typical couple sufficiently to get their human reproduction unit (“family”) started. Until recent years, it has mostly sufficed to preserve the bond for a lifetime. The emotional makeup of humans has also been a natural foundation for this relationship and the commitments it requires. But it has been a mistake to allow the association of religious processes and beliefs regarding marriage to obscure the fundamental truth that marriage is the process of creating and preserving human reproduction teams. And, by reviewing the nature of marriage, this more thorough assessment clarifies that the proposition of “gay marriage” is a completely inappropriate government policy. Homosexual pairings are not reproduction teams. Homosexuals can define their “domestic unions,” and put it in writing, and rely on it being enforceable as any other contract. But there is no public advantage to encouraging and institutionalizing a bond between two people, and jamming it into the rules for marriage, when it serves no purpose relating to human reproduction. “Gay Marriage” is a concept offensive to most Americans simply because their intuitive perception recognizes that the purpose of marriage is not simply to legitimize sexual relations between two people. Marriage goes way deeper than that, and leaves homosexual pairs standing outside, wondering why the lines are so long for the chicken nuggets.