The upcoming judgment by the Supreme
Court concerning gay marriage could wipe out the protections given to
traditional families under the law. America’s legal system is based on family
law, the protections given to parents and children in the family system known
throughout every successful society in the history of the world. Should the
Supreme Court rule against the
biological family by ruling for equalization
of gay marriage we would see chaos down the road.
Changes
to marriage began over a hundred years ago. As women entered the workforce, the
norms of society changed--about sexuality, sexual practices outside of marriage,
and sexual values, including homosexuality, which was often paired with prostitution
in society’s view. The divorce rate rose as sex became casual, recreational,
and commercialized. Our sexual values and practices continue to change, usually
to our detriment.
Currently
the Supreme Court is debating the legalization of same sex unions—a practice
punishable by death in primitive societies whose survival depended on a
sustained birthrate and whose freedom depended on the morality of its members
(as does our own). The Supreme Court ruling could take several different
directions, ruling against gay unions or ruling only on states that have
legalized the practice. It could also legalize gay marriage nationwide and
declare same gender and traditional marriages equal. Any decision will have
effects on our culture but a judgment of “equality” would alter society to its
core in destructive ways.
The drive to legalize same sex marriage has
arisen from materialistic motives--the determination of gays to get government
benefits given to married partners. Marriage is not rightfully about government
benefits, and we should grow pale at the potential to destroy the traditions of
our society to give “government goodies” to gay partners.
American law came from God, as our
constitutional system is patterned after the law God gave Moses thousands of years
ago. Legalization of gay marriage will redefine family law, destroying its Christian
foundation, replacing it with secular humanism’s changing civil law rooted in
man’s current wants. Christianity speaks irrevocably against the unnatural
union of those of the same flesh, making Christianity and gay marriage incompatible
opposites. Christians who believe God has changed His perfect will, gone back
on His previous commandments, and now condones gay marriage because He “loves
us all and wants us to be happy” are straddling two different worlds—professing
Christian values while embracing secular, anti-Christian philosophies—the
philosophies of Men.
Same sex marriage is on a collision course
with basic human rights, such as free speech—Christians who oppose the practice
cannot say so. It collides with the rights of parents—schools and society will,
by government decree, teach children that gay marriage is natural and good
despite parents’ objections. (This begs the question: how can gay marriage be “natural”
when the physical process is unarguably unnatural?) Businesses, teachers, even
churches are being forced to offer services contrary to their moral beliefs. In
effect, to grant lawful status to gays, those who dissent will lose their
rights—certain proof of tyrannical practices.
Another danger lurks: if gay and traditional marriage
become “equal”, the law will require equal treatment of both. Two methods
produce equality: give rights to those perceived as unequal, or take rights
from those perceived as favored. Gay couples cannot biologically reproduce.
Therefore, to equalize the two unions, rights connected to procreation—rights
offered under family law--would likely be taken from traditional marriages. Under
family law, society agrees that a sexual relationship is part of marriage, and
is for the primary purpose of bearing children. Therefore there exists a legal
presumption that the husband is the biological father when a married woman
conceives, so she and the child have legal claim on him for support and the
child has legal parentage established. Both parents have legal rights to the
child they created—this is especially important to the father, who is less
involved biologically in the pregnancy. All this could disappear. Even the
definitions of father, mother, and child could change. These rights are already
being struck down in states that have legalized gay marriage.
Equalization of gay marriage with traditional
marriage would change the historic purpose of marriage and sexual union.
Marriage would no longer be about children; sexual exclusiveness would no
longer be a legal and public assumption, and the reason for the sex act would
be fundamentally skewed. Marriage would become a legal registry of associations
rather than the foundation of society. The New Jersey Supreme Court found it
self evident that because “the shared societal meaning of marriage . . . has
always been the union of a man and a woman, to alter that meaning would render
a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of
ancient origin.”
Stated simply, legalizing gay marriage will upend
the entire history of human relationships. This movement is worldwide. We will,
as a society and planet, have embraced a global experiment rejected by every
surviving society in world history. We will jeopardize the survival of the
human race to give government benefits and self-gratification to a few. Surely we
will have found the bane of Esau—our birthright for a mess of pottage! Our
Founders debated long, as they considered war with Great Britain, whether the colonists
had the” public virtue”--the strength of character to put public well-being
above personal wants--to obtain and hold freedom. Only after concluding that
the colonists were ready for the responsibilities of freedom did they move for
independence. They would surely mourn for our loss of public virtue today.
In 1982 the Equal Rights Amendment was
defeated when it failed to win ratification in a sufficient number of states. The
amendment was not defeated because we didn’t want equality between the genders;
the amendment was rejected for reasons very similar to those raised here—that
legal equalization has fundamental, unintended consequences. Men and women are
different for biological reasons unrelated to equality. Their differences must be
preserved if society is to benefit from the strengths of both. Both are equally
important, both contribute to society’s wellbeing—like two halves of a
grapefruit. The differences of two genders—in society, in marriage, and in childrearing—are
a cause for rejoicing, rather than a battleground, a whim, or an antiquated
relic. We must retain the authority of traditional marriage as our legal
standard to protect the foundations of society.
- Pamela Romney Openshaw
Author and speaker
Promises of the
Constitution: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
No comments:
Post a Comment