In yesterday’s
post I noted that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower
court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage,
civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading
several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some
of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are
arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.
Following
are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far
from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the
arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.
Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the
amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument
calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule
trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen
has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument
means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from
individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do
so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and
boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The
claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the
person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right
can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it.
The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or
lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside
their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not
the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation
where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.
What I find
most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate
principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a
founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the
arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies
representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British
citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights
that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the
majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if
this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and
Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.
Marriage is primarily about procreation,
and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist: This argument is simple, that my marriage, and
your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means
that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason
for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone
through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not
marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means
that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than
marriages that produce children.
Not only am I
extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around
having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a
sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my
wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that
June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified
to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions
and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through
good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a
contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by
this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument
as being solid and proper.
For anyone
who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if
you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches
have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally
claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of
marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital
relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s
love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the
husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having
children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the
ground for the marriage’s existence.
If this
argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if
the amendment’s defenders lost.
The State has the right to determine who can
procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers
are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have
children. Are we going to require people
to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have
children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a
certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household
income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother
would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to
have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work
a second or third job? This rationale sounds
too much like a totalitarian state argument.
Marriage is a fundamental right that
historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child
deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If
every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are
we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a
parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and
Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing
to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without
both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional
behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother
and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the
lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in
two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can
readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or
two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their
children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate
than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is
supportive and engaged with the children.
While there
are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research
into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number
of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or
lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of
studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that
will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and
politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that
lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their
position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted
have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are
the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend
to dismiss.
Regardless
of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s
say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if
we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to
remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or
greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a
felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about
removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be
physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes
whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous
studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk
rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start
removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so,
why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking
about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?
I find
myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the
amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid
and balanced arguments?
