Gay-marriage proponents assert that marriage should be defined solely as a legal contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. But if this is strictly a legal contract among consenting adults, what’s the legal basis for stopping at two? In our multicultural society, would this definition not discriminate against Muslims, Mormons, or any other set of consenting adults who willingly participate in polygamy/polyandry?
Marriage is not a simple contract among adults. Couples engage in it for personal affective reasons, but society sanctions it because it’s the best means to raise the next generation. Whether each and every heterosexual couple is “good” or produces offspring is not the point: society knows marriages aren’t perfect, but they carry the best odds for stable procreation. It rolls the dice and hopes to win. Should homosexual couples have rights? They should, to the extent any group of persons, be it two, three, four, etc. can sign legal contracts for common benefits. But that doesn’t carry the same meaning as “marriage.”
Gay marriage proponents frame the issue as one of couples’ legal rights (i.e. gay couples are not allowed visitation rights, it’s difficult to inherit your partner’s goods). But these issues could be adequately resolved with the help of a lawyer and a little ink. This argument masks the real agenda: not tolerance, but forcing acceptance of gay couples as equal to heterosexual couples.
Personally, I could care less how homosexuals live their lives. It’s their God-given right to choose whichever lifestyle they wish. And I am morally obliged to treat them with compassion, as all of us are children of God. But what am I to do if placed in a situation where I am forced to accept or participate in events I consider morally wrong?
For example, a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts refused, on religious grounds, to let a gay married couple adopt a child. (I’m sure if an unmarried or divorced couple had applied for adoption, they would’ve also been refused). The adoption agency was pressed by the state government to allow the adoption go through, or they would be taken to court for discrimination. The adoption agency opted to shut down its operations in Massachusetts rather than break their own religious beliefs. Another example: a group of California Christian firemen were assigned to be on hand at a gay pride parade. They requested to be reassigned, as due to their religious beliefs, they did not want to participate in the event. They were denied the reassignment, and threatened to be fired on grounds they were discriminating against homosexuals if they didn’t show up.
It’s ironic how, during the Viet Nam war, the Left supported the conscientious objectors, crying out that it was morally wrong to force kids to fight in a war they didn’t believe in, even if the draft law stated otherwise. Yet today it is precisely those on the political Left who demand we cast our morals aside, and accept the gay marriage laws, or be branded bigots, or homophobes worthy of being punished.
The United States was founded on the notion that we could pursue whichever religious beliefs we wished, so long as they didn’t harm others. But what about situations where other’s beliefs harm us? Are my religious beliefs subordinate to gay’s sexual beliefs?
