Reflections on Homosexuality
Part 3: Gay Marriage
At a casual glance, the issue of gay marriage can seem to be a 'morally neutral' issue. In other words, having gay sex may be immoral, but two gay people obtaining a piece of paper with their names on it isn't. If one sexual active gay couple gets a official document saying their relationship is recognized by some government authority, while another couple just lives together without one, it's essentially the same from a moral standpoint. (The document doesn't excuse the sexual activity of the first couple, of course, but it doesn't make it
worse either).
Having a 'morally-neutral' component doesn't mean gay marriage should automatically be supported, however. As with most issues involving homosexuality, the underlying issues are complex and should be considered seriously.
What many people forget is that marriage is not a legal ordinance; it is a legal acknowledgement of a religious ordinance. The fact that most governments, for the sake of expediency, do not require the two marriage partners to have any religious beliefs, nor require that the ceremony be performed by a religious leader for state recognition, doesn't change the fact that the tradition of marriage has been since the beginning a covenant between three people; a man, a woman, and God. To understand why redefining 'marriage' from a secular standpoint would be a bad idea, we must first discuss how the current secular definition of marriage fits into God's plan, even marriages between people who don't even believe in God.
First, let's assume God exists and that He, in His infinite wisdom, has decreed that the path to true happiness for any family is for a man and woman to be chaste before marriage, and then totally faithful to each other after marriage. Now let's suppose we have a couple 'Dan' and 'Cindy' who have been married for several years, but who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. One day, Dan is propositioned by a pretty female co-worker of his who invites him to have an affair with her. As it happens, Dan doesn't really believe in the concept of 'sin', and doesn't feel committing adultery to be morally wrong. He considers his co-worker's proposition, but then thinks: "I'm legally married to Cindy, and if I have an affair we'll probably get divorced. Even if I feel I don't want to live with Cindy anymore, a divorce will cause some major financial hardship. I'll have to split a lot of my assets with Cindy, I'll have to pay alimony, and my adultery--though not technically illegal--will be frowned upon by the court and they'll give me an unfavorable judgment." After working out the consequences in his mind, Dan decides having an affair isn't in his best interest and remains faithful to his wife (albeit reluctantly).
In this situation, we can see that even though Dan had no religious or moral reason to avoid having an affair, the secular laws of the land gave him an incentive to remain faithful to his wife, and thereby obedient to the commandments of God--even by 'accident'. This is why people who believe in God and His commandments can wholeheartedly support secular laws involving marriage, and those that encourage people to get married, because secular marriage helps fulfill God's plan, whether the people involved believe in Him or not.
With gay marriage, we have the opposite effect. Even though as noted above, the attainment of a marriage document doesn't make a gay union neither more nor less immoral, having a legally binding relationship will make someone less
likely to be more obedient to the commandments of God in the future. Suppose 'John', who is involved in a gay relationship, is visited by missionaries one day, and decides that he's going to try to be more spiritually-minded and follow the teaching of the Bible, including being chaste. Without a binding marriage, John is more or less free to seek after his new goals in life, but with a legal marriage, John is in the same position that Dan was above; separating from his partner will cause major financial consequences. This will be a big obstacle to John obtaining his spiritual goals, and it is quite possible John will decide it's not worth the trouble and put his goals to one side (certainly some percentage of people in John's position will). Thus, gay marriage makes it less likely that John will end up following God's commandments, and therefore those who believe in following God's commandments would have to view such laws in a harsh light.
Let's examine some of the arguments for gay marriage and discuss them in-depth:
Q: Don't gays deserve to have the same rights as everyone else?
A: But...they already do! The "Equal Rights" argument has been put forward by the pro-gay marriage side for years, but the fact is gays have
exactly the same rights as non-gays under current laws: they can marry one person of the opposite sex who's 18 or older, and who isn't currently married to anyone else. The fact that gays might not
want to marry someone of the opposite sex is beside the point; the right still exists.
Example: I'm over 21, so I have the right to buy alcohol and tobacco products. I don't happen to drink or smoke, though, so those 'rights' are essentially meaningless. Not drinking or smoking is my choice, but the fact that I don't
use these rights doesn't mean, however, they
don't exist. And it
certainly doesn't mean that the government should let me (and only me) purchase marijuana or cocaine legally to 'make up' for my not wanting to buy alcohol or tobacco. Likewise, the fact that gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex (still their right under law) doesn't mean the government should allow gay marriages to 'make up for it'.
Q: But shouldn't gays have the right to marry anyone they want?
A: But,
no one has the right to marry
anyone they want. The government has strict laws (which, take note, are applied to everyone equally) forbidding polygamous, under-age, and incestuous marriages, even among completely consenting adults. If the government has the right to restrict certain kinds of marriages (and the gay-rights side is always quick to point out that they're not trying to make polygamy legal), then there's no reason the government can't restrict marriage only to members of the opposite sex.
Anyway you look at it, the gay marriage issue is one of "Special Rights", not "Equal Rights", and the best comparison is to marijuana legalization, not to any of the civil rights fights by blacks over the last century. (Frankly, If I were one of those involved in the struggle for black civil rights, I'd be offended at how often the pro-gay marriage side invokes their cause since they're not even remotely the same. I'm surprised more civil rights leaders haven't complained publicly about it more...) "Special Rights" are great if you can get them, but in no way is the government obligated to hand them out.
Q: But allowing gays to marry won't 'hurt anyone'...
A: A short-sighted and naive viewpoint, but shared by many. Let's think for a second: what's the driving motive behind the push for gay marriage? Just so gays can have a nice piece of paper with their names on it? While some couples would undoubtedly appreciate that just for the symbolic value, the real motive for most gay couples lies elsewhere: they want the same benefits (life and health insurance, tax credits) that heterosexual couples receive under current laws--
money, in other words. That's another 'morally neutral' issue, though, isn't it? Who cares if the government allows gay couples to take a tax deduction? Well, with a finite amount of money and resources, government benefits is a zero-sum game--in other words, giving benefits to one group must by definition reduce the benefits received by others.
So who gets hurt by legalized gay marriage? Here's exactly what would happen:
(1) Government legalized gay marriage, treating them as inherent equals to straight couples.
(2) As a corollary to (1), government decrees that all benefits that are provided to straight couples by federal, state, and local governments, as well as private companies must also be offered to gay couples.
(3) Forced by government, companies or organizations with a large number of gay employees find that they must immediately provide a significant number of benefits to a new group of gay spouses.
(4) Faced with increased expenses, a certain percentage of companies will respond by reducing benefits for ALL couples, gay and straight.
which leads to
(5) a small but significant percentage of married couples will find their benefits reduced
as a direct result of legalizing gay marriage.
If you'd like, we can take our thought experiment one step further and say
(6) since financial reasons are behind over half of all divorces, we can say with certainty that a small number of couples will be pushed closer to divorce by the resulting reduction of benefits from what they were previously, again as a direct result of legalizing gay marriage.
While the zero-sum rule isn't an inherent argument against gay marriage (since benefits get added and reduced all the time), but it demonstrates that, contrary to the statements of many, gay marriage will affect (an admittedly small) number of straight marriages, and those who claim gay marriage 'hurts no one' are being as naive as those who claim raising the minimum wage, expanding health insurance coverage, or the mass granting of citizenship or other benefits to illegal immigrants 'hurts no one'.
Another not often discussed factor is the effect not of gay marriages, but of gay
divorces. Handing out marriage licenses is easy--it's the divorces that will require more time and effort. Divorce courts will have to start handling a much larger case load, as gay relationships which previously were ineligible suddenly require the court to handle the details. This will hurt indirectly all the straight couples whose cases get pushed back because of the extra load, not to mention the kids who will find themselves involved in a bitter custody battle between two gay parents where previously the parental rights were set in stone. On the bright side, though, the divorce lawyers will be a lot happier...
Q: But Baron, that can't be the only ways gay marriage hurts straight families. After all, we hear all the time about gay marriage being 'an attack on families' by church groups. Certainly the influence must be much more severe...
A: Well, actually no...it's not. With the exception of the benefits situation outlined above--which is admittedly small and requires you to work for a company with a large number of gay employees to begin with--gay marriage does not 'attack' other marriages. There's a fundamental difference (which anti-gay marriage types often don't recognize) between "attacking families" and "attacking 'The Family'". The former involves actual people, while the latter is simply an abstract concept. A statement that 'Gay marriage attacks families' is overstating the matter at best. I don't know about you, but a gay couple in California getting a piece of paper with their names on it doesn't affect my marriage to the Baroness any more than that same gay couple having sex does now. Legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts won't encourage or discourage my children from following the commandments of God, nor of marrying in the temple in the future. Other than through purely indirect means (through the distribution of money and benefits as outlined above) gay marriage will have very little effect on actual families.
Yet, you'd think otherwise listening to the apocalyptic language used by gay marriage opponents. Listening to them, you'd think the heterosexual divorce rate would triple within months of gay marriage becoming legal, as if there are millions of husbands and wives who are just
waiting to leave their families and find a gay spouse the instant the government allows it.
What the pro-family groups mean to say (and sometimes they make the distinction) is that gay marriage attacks 'The Family'--which is true...in an abstract sense. But attacking an abstract concept like 'The Family' is several orders of magnitude less serious than something that attacks actual families. Furthermore, 'The Family' has been under attack for a long time now: by the prevalence of abortion, casual (heterosexual) sex, lack of responsible parenting, the portrayal of families in movies and TV, quickie divorces, etc...
Let me quote from an
article written by Donald Sensing, a Methodist pastor from Tennessee:
Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it.
I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.
Restating Sensing's thesis, gay marriage is not the
cause of the destruction of the family; only one more small step among many. That's enough to oppose it (on principle) but not enough to proclaim it as a heinous crime against society that will wreak destruction upon all 'good' families now and forever. It is wrong, but only a small wrong.
Q: Gays should be allowed to marry because it would reduce promiscuity, right?
This is a common, yet puzzling argument. What exactly is wrong with being promiscuous? In other words, if having gay sex is okay, why is having LOTS of gay sex not okay? Shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want? I find it odd that the pro-gay marriage side appears to be using some kind of moral judgment to say promiscuity is wrong while at the same time refusing to accept any moral judgment regarding gay sex by itself. Is morality relative or absolute?
Q: What about the spread of AIDS and other STDs?
A: Not a good enough answer... AIDS isn't spread by 'promiscuous' sex, it's spread by ANY amount of sex (gay or straight)--even once is enough. Saying the purpose (or even a benefit) of gay marriage is to prevent the spread of AIDS is unreasonable, since the impact on gay promiscuity is negligible. Suppose we divide all gay couples into four groups:
(1) couples that aren't married and never will be, even if legalized.
(2) couples that would get married if legal, but won't be faithful to each other inside or outside of marriage.
(3) couples that wouldn't have been faithful without a legally binding marriage, but will be faithful (however reluctantly) when the marriage is entered into.
(4) couples that were completely committed and faithful to each other without marriage and naturally are still faithful to each other within it.
Now, from a promiscuity standpoint, gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on groups (1),(2), or (4)--their behavior is not changed by legalizing gay marriage in any way--so any statement about gay marriage affecting the spread of AIDS by reducing promiscuity depends entirely on how large you think group (3) is. Coupled with the fact that gay marriage has no effect on promiscuity in any of the groups
before they get married, and the actual impact of legalized gay marriage on the spread of STDs will be minimal.
Side Note: The straight community, including many Christian churches, commit this same error--saying premarital sex is okay, but being 'promiscuous' is not. What's the definition of promiscuous, exactly? (See my article
"The Beard Principle" for more discussion of this concept) Gays (correctly) argue that there shouldn't be a double standard; they should be judged by the same standards as everyone else. Of course, in reality that means the somewhat vague standards of chastity held by other churches should be changed upwards, not that gay sex should be excused.
Q: How can you say allowing gays to marry denigrates the 'sanctity' of marriage when straight culture has already denigrated it enough as it is? (see: Britney Spears' marriage fiasco, marriage based TV reality shows, high divorce rate, etc...)
A: No argument from me on the amount of disrespect straight society has shown to the covenant of marriage through a variety of means, (see the discussion above...) but this is a 'red herring' argument: because
A has nothing to do with
B. How do the mistakes of one side show that the other side should be allowed to participate...unless the theory is gays would be able to do marriage
better, (kind of like the Democratic Party saying the Republicans have screwed up government enough, we need to have 'our turn'?) Are gays maintaining that if granted the right to marry, they would (a) get divorced at a lower rate than straight couples and (b) wouldn't participate in any of the 'denigrating' behavior they criticize straight couples for participating in? This sounds nice, but isn't realistic. If gay marriage is embraced on a wide scale, you'll see many couples get married and stay together faithfully, but you'll also see impulsive Las Vegas weddings (like Ms.Spears's) that disintegrate almost immediately, you'll see gays get married for immigration purposes or for money, you'll see Hollywood style marriages which start out with a lot of pomp and circumstance and then break up within a period of months--in short, you'll soon see gay couples do everything that they previously criticized straight couples for doing. If the gay side wants to argue that they should "have the chance to treat the sanctity of marriage just as lightly as heterosexuals do", they might have a point, but that's not really a reason to become enthusiastic about supporting gay marriage, is it?
Side Note: Accurate divorce rates for current gay marriages are hard to come by, since both sides present highly biased numbers to support their side. Generally speaking, the gay divorce rate in areas where gay marriages have been approved is about the same as the straight divorce rate--often lower. This is a positive sign for the pro-gay marriage group, although the statistics must be tempered by the facts that:
(a) the gay
marriage rate is extremely low (meaning very few gay couples go to the trouble of getting a marriage license even in areas that allow it, and those that do are presumably more serious about the relationship and thus less likely to divorce than an 'average' couple)
(b) the areas that have allowed gay marriages have only been allowing them for a short period of time, meaning the divorce rate is calculated on a shorter time period than non-gay marriages, and will likely rise as time goes on.
I expect that if gay marriage ever becomes widely accepted, the divorce rate will be found to be almost exactly the same as straight marriages, because the reasons for divorce will remain the same.
Q: Isn't it unfair to expect guys who are attracted to other guys to get married to a woman anyway when they're incapable of being a good husband and father?
A: Well, now...how exactly are you defining a 'good husband'? Putting it more bluntly: since when is the be-all-end-all purpose of marriage to have sex? Although not ideal, there are, in fact, many reasons why married couples don't have sex. Old age, the wife loses interest after child-birth, the husband is incapable due to physical or psychological problems, one or both of them just doesn't feel physically attracted to the other anymore, etc... I'm not saying these couples are happier this way, but the fact that they don't have sex doesn't
invalidate their entire marriage. By the Lord's standards, a good husband should care for his wife and his kids (kids, you say? Again, there are other ways to have kids than by having sex...), provide for their physical needs and also to provide emotional and spiritual support and guidance, along with being a worthy priesthood holder to bring the blessings of God into their home. Which of these things is a man with same-sex attraction incapable of doing? Of course, this would bring challenges to the marriage, but show me a marriage that doesn't have challenges. Couples all the time enter into interracial marriages, marriages between people of different countries, marriages with large age differences, marriages between people who have been married before, who already have kids, and so on--all of which bring their own challenges and rewards. Saying it's 'impossible' for a gay man (or woman) to be a good spouse cheapens the institution of marriage by reducing it to its base characteristic. And this is even ignoring the fact that many guys who have been primarily attracted to other guys have been able to have a successful heterosexual relationship when they've found the right woman...and when they've been willing to try.
That will do for now... (There are many other areas of gay marriage we could discuss, but it's time to wrap up...)
In conclusion let's look at things with a little bit of perspective: Gay marriage can and should be opposed, but 99% of any detrimental influence gay marriage brings to society is suffered by gays themselves--mostly in terms of them being less likely to obey the commandments of God--and not by you and me. That's reason enough to stand against it, but not enough to justify the hyper-exaggerated prophecies of doom and destruction to all families worldwide you hear from its most staunch opponents. Legalizing gay marriage in some or all parts of the US is not the end of the world, and will be more of a reflection than a cause of the lack of morals in society. Religious types feel that society accepting gay marriage will mean marginalization of religion--which is quite likely. The larger a gap that is formed between secular laws and religious principles means the more religious people will be considered by mainstream society as 'odd' and 'out-of-touch'. Again, though, this process has already been going on for a long time. I've been feeling marginalized by society for quite some time now (how often do you think I can find something on TV that reflects my standards)--and I don't think the process is going to reverse itself anytime soon, do you? The last days we live in are
supposed to be ones where 'evil is called good and good evil' and there never will be a wide acceptance of the truth before the Second Coming. So be it--there are things that I can change and things I can't and (although it's not a sure thing, yet--don't forget) society's acceptance of gay marriage will not cause me to lose faith nor will it plunge the world under a sudden cloud of darkness. As President Hinckley has said recently (in the Aaronic Priesthood Commeration in April 2004), I'm content to "let the world do what it will..." and worry more about my family--my primary and immediate responsibility.
Next:
What Latter-Day Saints are right...and wrong about
