Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part I Marriage and Children

America has been having a debate over marriage and “gay marriage” for a number of years now. No doubt this debate will continue for a number of years to come. However, to date, and the recent vote in Maine confirmed this, no state, including states that are hardly hotbeds of conservatism such as California and Maine have not approved “gay marriage” through a referendum. The states that do have it have almost always ended up with it through a court order. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with court ordered “gay marriages” in all fifty states, though as with abortion this is likely to be a source of great controversy and division.

Of course, from the perspective of basic, orthodox Christianity there is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” While homosexuals should not be mistreated or treated without mercy or told there is no forgiveness for their sins, homosexual actions are sinful and the notion that people of the same sex can be married is a theological absurdity. Any attempts to say otherwise, which some liberals unconvincingly do, fly in the face of the clear teachings of Scripture. It should also be noted that Scripture also teaches against lust, adultery and fornication. And at best the Bible only allows divorce, and especially divorce and remarriage in very limited circumstances. Homosexual acts are sinful, but in our society heterosexuals, including many who are Christians or claim to be Christians, have engaged in plenty of sexual sin on their own. There is no use throwing too many stones at gays in a society that is a glass house so to speak.

Certainly the American Constitution allows for the free exercise of religion, which means that religious bodies have the right to define marriage within their communities however they wish. But our laws, including our marriage laws aren’t based on religion in general and Christianity specifically. So what should be the basis of state-sanctioned marriages? Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place? What interest does the state have in marriage?

First, it is worth pointing out that the state has never made “love” a condition of obtaining a marriage license. Of course most people who desire said licenses do claim to love each other and it is widely recognized that love and happiness is important for a married couple. At any rate, the state has no vested interest (and likely does not have the ability) in regulating people’s love lives or promoting romance within a relationship or making it a precondition for a marriage license. Adults will figure this out one way or the other on their own. On the other hand, the state has a great interest in the welfare of children. And numerous studies have shown that children are better off physically, psychologically, educationally, socially and economically when they are raised by two parents, particularly their biological parents. There are always exceptions to this, such as cases of extreme dysfunctional, neglect or abuse. But as a rule, children are better off with their parents. Studies show that children who grow up with both parents do better in school, are less likely to grow up in poverty, to engage in drug use, crime or risky sexual activities. As children are so vulnerable and are the future of the nation, it is only reasonable for the state to show some concern for their well-being.

With this in mind, the state has an interest in granting marriage licenses to consenting heterosexual couples who seek them. These marriage licenses entitle those who obtain them to special rights, privileges, and responsibilities. However, these aren’t given arbitrarily, but because biologically heterosexual couples are the ones who bring children into the world and are the best ones suited to raise them. Certainly, there are exceptions to this. Some heterosexual couples are infertile or too old to have children while others choose not to have any children at all. Nonetheless, all heterosexuals have the correct biologically equipment so to speak to have children and the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact end up having children. In addition, the state doesn’t make laws based on exceptions, but on the general rule. For example, it is entirely reasonable for the state to require all automobile owners to have a valid drivers’ license and current auto insurance even if a few people who own cars park them in a garage and never take them on the road for use.

Homosexual couples are biologically different from heterosexual couples. In all cases, homosexual couples are biologically incapable of having children together. Sure, they can adopt children or one member of the couple can conceive a child through artificial means. But these methods all involve third parties, which make them different from the way most heterosexual couples have and raise children. As part of this, biologically speaking, children cannot have two fathers or two mothers. And children, even at a young age know this. Thus there is always something artificial or unnatural about a homosexual couple raising a child.

Remember that the state’s main interest with marriage should be as an institution to raise children. If this is the case, the state has no reason to extend marriage to homosexual couples. Homosexual relations are of no consequence to the state, which should approach them with as much indifference as it does the relationship between roommates, which are not eligible for any package of special privileges or rights. This isn’t because of religious objections to homosexuality. Rather, because of basic biology. Since the advent of no-fault divorce, however, the state and society in general have moved away from the idea that marriage is primarily an institution designed for the bearing and raising of children. Instead, the primary, if not nearly the exclusive focus has increasingly become the personal happiness of the couple. If marriage is mainly a “sentimental” matter and is a public confirmation that a couple loves each other and thus seeks to share property and benefits, what then should be the criteria for the state to grant marriage licenses? I will attempt to address this in my next post.