The Debate
The problem with the "debate" right now is that it is not being allowed to occur. Far too many of the self-proclaimed "accepting" people, rather than identifying and evaluating both sides of the issue methodically and dispassionately, immediately take offense to any dissenting opinion. Such dissension gets summarily dismissed as naive, bigoted or ignorant. The most prominent influences on today's pop culture - entertainment, journalism, universities - are firmly entrenched in this camp, which is why it is not surprising that the Millennials are the very first generation to hold a majority position in favor of gay marriage. To be certain, the folks on the side of redefining marriage have good points to discuss and consider. I wish they would simply acknowledge that those who don't agree with them also have good points, rather than resorting to mob-mentality and shame tactics. This dynamic can be observed on this clip from Piers Morgan's program on CNN:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/must-see-video-a-marriage-expert39s-masterful-handling-of-piers-morgan
It wasn't right for the anti-gay lynch mobs of the past, and it's not right for the other side now. When about 47% of the population is not in favor of instituting gay marriage, should we just ignore their voice, assuming all these people are bigoted, fearful ignoramuses? How can one qualify the insinuation that today's wisdom is inherently superior to that of our forefathers?
The Legal Aspect
The focus thus far has been who should reserve the "right to marry." As both conservative and liberal Justices of the Supreme Court could prepare respective opinions on the constitutionality of the "right to marry," the divide in the Court simply illustrates that the 10th Amendment should dictate: The people in their respective states should be able to define marriage as much as they will it. Status of rights that the Supreme Court must defend among all states (outlined in the Bill of Rights) are not at stake here...at least for adults.
The Religious Aspect
When the Christian community vocally denounces gay marriage, citing violation of Biblical principles, advocates of gay marriage usually make the assumption that Christians are just imposing their beliefs on others who don't share those same beliefs.* However, as long as the rights of citizens to decide in each state (as in California's Prop 8) is upheld, there is no imposition of will other than that of the majority. This applies in either direction, which sets the stage for the people presenting both cases. Let us not prohibit or discourage either side from doing so.
Basing legislation on principles that happen to coincide with the tenets of a particular faith is not grounds for dismissal, just as basing legislation on secular principles should also not result in a similar immediate dismissal. If the Republic has a religious majority, the laws of the land will naturally reflect it. It does not mean that the State has adopted a particular religion that then binds the conscience of all the people to pay tribute to a particular religious establishment. Similarly, if the Republic has a secular majority, the laws will reflect it, and religious practice need not be inhibited.
Notwithstanding, since the concept of America is rooted in both a culture and a Constitution, we should examine which elements of our culture produced prosperity and which have produced decline. The Constitution provides the framework to debate and legislate these issues democratically, without prematurely relinquishing its power to the Judiciary. Rather than immediately seeking the Court's decision (in either direction), the electorate ought to be focused on democratically deciding which societal aspects and cultural elements need to be preserved or abandoned, in so far as public policy relates.
Christians (myself included) contend that our society compounds its problems with every step away from the Biblical tenets of the past. Removal of prayer from schools and the 10 Commandments from public institutions, no-fault divorces, the advent of the abortion holocaust, and the mandate for a one-sided teaching of evolution in schools: these can all be correlated to the breakdown of our society through the championing of adult "freedom," the erosion of accountability to God, and the progressive collapse of the American family. Broken and dysfunctional homes account for a lion's share of the national dropout rate, drug dependency, teenage pregnancy, and crime. This is not to say at only Christians can exercise moral responsibility in raising their children. However, when non-Christians exercise moral responsibility, they are just demonstrating unintentional alignment with Christian principles, which still exists in our nation's cultural fabric. Our Founders were natural law theorists, attributing origins to God. Accountability to our original religious tenets represents the highest probability of most people adopting right principles and allowing our children to reap the benefits. Secular humanism has never proven a similar track record (quite to the contrary). Even de Toqueville surmised that America's greatness lied in its Christian values, and that it would not last for long if faith were abandoned.
If today's problems with heterosexual marriage and relationships are broken, they are broken due to departure from Biblical principles, not because of them. Continuing in this wrong direction cannot hope to solve any problems, and will promise to only steepen them. Doesn't abandoning the Judeo-Christian tenets in favor of the secular humanist tenets just replace one prevailing religious system with another? World Communism bore all the same marks of a religion without calling itself one, even while outlawing Christianity.
The Social Aspect
Once we agree that we can openly discuss what has produced social decline (and not just resort to dismissive name-calling), even apart from the religious aspects, we can look at second and third order effects of redefining marriage and family. Family courts need to be able to lend value (of course, on a case-by-case basis) to what research clearly shows is the best formula for raising children: a traditional structure with a husband and a wife. This doesn't mean that the traditional one is the ONLY definition of family; it just means we know it generally favors the best social outcomes. Expanding the definition of marriage and family to include homosexual unions exacerbates the problem family courts have today with being an effective complement to the societal interest of preserving and improving the integrity of the American family. Instead, the family court would just bow to the protected status that homosexuals could gain if this issue ends up getting decided by the Supreme Court.
My children's greatest current challenge is that the family courts no longer lend much weight to the security and stability offered to them in a traditional family of a husband and a wife. They refuse, in spite of clear academic evidence, to make a value judgement that a traditional family construct is usually superior to that of a single parent or a broken home. Instead, the fantasy of the "blended family" between divorced parents - even in situations with extremely disparate and incompatible parenting means and methods - is imposed and given clear precedence over the possibility that a new family structure is best for the child. In the court's view, the role of a non-custodial biological father is preeminent, despite an extremely underwhelming track record in terms of basic responsibilities, financial & emotional support, and physical presence. I can attest that the only one who makes out is the bigger deadbeat, and the biggest loser is the child. Gay marriage is just another construct of more social engineering fantasies that don't have children's interest at heart. It is only a matter of time before a family court would be able to weigh against me teaching my children that homosexuality is not a lifestyle to embrace.
I suppose this appears incredibly intolerant of me. Tolerance means putting up with someone who doesn't share your views or background; it does not require wholehearted acceptance. Our goal should be tolerance, which goes hand-in-hand with freedom. Compelling acceptance by all is dangerously close to fascism.
Taxes & Benefits
Legislation that does not require redefining marriage can fix the discrepancies gay couples have with how taxes are imposed, social security and death benefits. Employers should retain the freedom to manage the healthcare benefits as it aligns with a given company's charter and system. There should be nothing to stop an employer or insurer from extending benefits to whatever living or family situation applicable to the employee. These topics appear to be unnecessary excuses to redefine marriage, where they could (and should) just be fixed separately.
---------------------------------------------------
*Indeed it is tragic that too many espousing the Christian view have denounced homosexuality beyond that of any other sinful lifestyle. It is not surprising that the non-Christian world naturally assumes bigotry. Our focus ought to be revealing the truth and light of the Gospel, which frees people from bondage to all types of sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment