What's the Harm?

Regarding the consequences of redefining marriage toward gender-neutrality, the most common question is:

“How will this affect you getting married?”  Or “How will this affect a single straight-marriage?”

News anchors seem to take particular delight in asking this question to those who believe in the natural-conjugal definition of marriage.    The answer to those questions are, admittedly, very little. 

“Aha!” the asker says, “How could you oppose it when it doesn’t affect you!  Your only reason is your religiously motivated hatred!”

Well, imagine the same thing being said about no-fault divorce.  True, liberalizing divorce would not have much effect on happy couples.  But is that really the only way to measure its impact?  Are there no other societal side-effects?  No other interested parties to think about?

Same goes for redefining marriage toward gender neutrality.  So I would classify the various negative side-effects into three categories…

Riding the Slippery Slope to the Bottom:

People tend to hate slippery slope arguments, but are often too quick to dismiss them.  A good slippery slope argument will show that one change will inevitably lead to another change by clearing away all philosophical and legal obstacles.  The argument can succeed in showing that a change is more important than first realized.

To wit, now that the legal definition of marriage has been changed, the following changes are inevitable.  Without the logic of the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage, the current definition will inevitably devolve.  All it will take is a single test-case going to the Supreme Court.

Polygamy will have to be allowed: 

In their ruling, the Supreme Court’s logic was that the government would be violating people’s rights to dignity by refusing to solemnize their intimate romantic relationships. 

If that is true, what justification is there for limiting marriage to two people?  If there is a group of three people who are in a mutually committed romantic relationship and wish to be married, what basis is there for the government to refuse?  There is none.

In fact, this process has already begun.  Other people are publicly calling for it.  And “experts” are praising its value. 

Consanguinity laws will have to be revoked:

Among the States in the US, half of them outright ban marriage between first-cousins.  All states ban marriage between siblings and parents.  But…. why?

The obvious reason is because the children of such couples would have a very high rate of genetic defects and disabilities.  However, now the court holds that biological procreation is not a consideration when it comes to marriage law.  The defenders of natural-conjugal marriage argued that it was, and the courts found that those arguments do not work.  So is there any reason left to prevent consanguineous marriages? 

Even if someone insists on prohibiting it for the sake of birth defects (which won’t hold up in court), would that argument work with two brothers?  Two sisters? 

One might ask, “Who the heck wants to do that?” 

Well… use your imagination.  Perhaps the siblings live together and just want to tax benefits, insurance benefits, and so on.  Why not?

Marriage will be Reduced to Contract:

Justice Kennedy said that changing to gender-neutral marriage would not change the institution at all.  All it means is more people will participate in this meaningful, hallowed institution.  However, one quickly sees that when you strip out the core function of marriage – (Creating a partnership which will bond parents to one another and to any children they produce) – there is little left.

It becomes a property and custody sharing contract between any number of adults.  When we reach that point – and we will – one might wonder, “Did we lose something along the way?”

This might be the most appropriate or inappropriate clipart possible.  I'm not sure.

Inevitable Persecution:

The basis upon which the courts redefined marriage was that the natural-conjugal definition imposed a form of a inequality which was akin to segregations.  For that reason, one can expect that individuals and groups who continue to adhere to the natural-conjugal definition will be treated as the legal equivalents of neo-nazis and klansmen.

The instances of this over the past few years are too numerous to mention, but here are a few highlights:

• A photographer being punished by a court for conscientiously objecting to participating in a same-sex wedding service.  

• Orthodox Christian ministers being driven from the public square.  

• Christian charities being shut down for not complying with the new definition. 

• Christian teachers being fired for mentioning their beliefs… even in a class about Christian beliefs.  

• A baker who also wishes to conscientiously object being forced by the State to take “sensitivity classes”. And others being financially ruined for the same.

• A CEO being pressured out of his job because in 2008 he supported a ballot initiative for conjugal natural marriage.

• And just over the horizon... Christian schools and charities losing their tax-exempt statuses, which was a prospect actively entertained by the lawyer arguing for redefinition before the Supreme Court.  

And much, much more.

This debate is often framed as an exercise in “live and let live”.  That will not be how it will play out.  The logic now exists in our country’s legal system for people to punish Christians (and others) for holding, teaching, and trying to live out their beliefs.  The law will be used to treat Christianity as a form of bigotry.

The Devaluing of "Motherhood" and "Fatherhood":

Now for the biggest changes. 

I’ve hear a lot of people say, “Social science has proven that any two-parent home is just as good as mom and dad.” 

But think about the corollary to that statement.  If you believe that (Dad + Dad) is the same as (Dad + Mom), then you’ve said that Mom brings nothing unique to the table.  There is nothing about the lived experience of femininity and motherhood which cannot be imitated and replaced by a man.  There is nothing unique she brings to the table as a mother. The same logic goes for Dad too.

That means a person who espouses the “just as good” theory is bound to believe that a little girl being raised by two gay men loses nothing by not having a mother.  Or a little boy being raised by two lesbian women loses nothing by not having a father.   And if you happen to believe in the essential roles of motherhood and fatherhood … you are engaging in a form of bigotry.  

To which I can only reply.... really?

Happy State-Approved Parent Day?

You cannot change marriage without changing parenthood.  

In the legal world, the redefinition of marriage will mean the abolition of motherhood and fatherhood in the public sphere.  Children will just have “parents”.  The hospital system will be compelled to completely ignore the biological facts of parentage.  

We love to talk about protecting children's rights, but we’ve lost sight of the two things to which they have the strongest natural claim: their mom and dad.  To purposefully remove a child from his parents – except in cases of gross deficiencies on the parents’ part – is a violation of the child’s rights.  If we redefine marriage, the law will cease to recognize such a right.  Believing in such a right will (you guessed it) be a form of bigotry.

As family situations grow in bizarreness and complexity, the government will have to acquire more power to sort out family affairs.  People will be parents not because they actually are the kid’s parents, but because the government says so.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  People don’t realize what an extreme shift this is. Does the average supporter of redefining marriage want a society in which believing in the complimentary importance of motherhood and fatherhood is a hate crime?    

So... what now?

[BACK]