Maybe you saw what I did there; I did not say states were being told it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriages—for several reasons:
1) the Constitution is silent on that issue, which leaves it to the states; 2)
keeping the definition as it has been in most cultures during all the millennia
of human history is not a ban, which would require taking something existing
away; and 3) people need to be aware that a change in definition of terms for a
particular contract is what’s going on, such that marriage would no longer
include permanence, exclusivity, and the sexual act required for procreation,
but would simply “honor” anyone in any sort of sexual relationship at the
current time, regardless of society’s interest in such a relationship.
Anyway, the SCOTUS changed because there is now a split
among circuit court rulings, which gave them impetus to rule sooner rather than
later. We can expect a decision by late June.
I never like putting matters of basic right and wrong
ordained by God into the hands of a few judges (mainly appointed for their
leanings). But we can pray that a good decision on their part might be helpful.
As president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, said, “Lower court
judges have robbed millions of people of their voice and vote on society’s most
fundamental relationship—marriage. There
is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the courts to silence the people
and impose a nationwide redefinition of marriage.”
So, this decision for SCOTUS to get involved happened
Friday, January 16th. The previous Friday, January 7th,
the 5th Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the cases before it,
relating to Texas. An interesting group of amicus briefs was presented—against same-sex “marriage,”
from adults who had been raised by same-sex parents. Their complaints ranged
from sexual confusion, to fear of disagreeing with the same-sex “marriage”
promoters (risking ostracism from family relationships), to subjugation to
sexual predation—apparently unprotected by the parents, and possibly even enabled
by those parents.
I find some of what these people suffered to be horrifying.
Their testimonies are anecdotal. However, they represent much larger numbers
who have feared to come forward. Going against the culture they were raised in
puts at risk the relationships they have reason to value.
The prescribed claim being made about “same-sex families” is
that children raised by same-sex couples differ in no particular way from those
raised by heterosexual couples. It might look like a pleasant claim, but it’s
unsupportable. Studies have generally compared such children to children raised
by heterosexual unmarried parents—which have significantly poorer outcomes than
children raised by their married mother and father. More evidence is coming out
that, not only are these children not better off than other children lacking a
mother or father; these children also have the addition of sexual confusion and
other sexual-related problems (overly sexual at a young age, inappropriate
sexual relationships with much older adults, promiscuity, prostitution).
If the question is what is best for the children, there is
nothing about same-sex parenting that satisfies society’s interest.
I listened to a good part of the oral arguments [here]. The plaintiffs’ claim that there is
a Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” fails to identify what marriage itself means. Their claim is
that a minority group cannot be discriminated against by denying them marriage.
This argument fails, because marriage laws do not prevent any homosexual person
from getting married to a person of the opposite sex. Many homosexuals do that
very thing; it’s the main way children come to exist for homosexual parents
(adoption and in-vitro fertilization from a non-parent sperm donor being the
other ways, because obviously a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring
together).
So the argument further claims that there is a fundamental
right to marry the person of your choice. But that simply isn’t so—and the
different limitations are determined by the states. No state allows persons to
marry someone already married, or someone under the age of consent without the
consent of a parent (and then within a limited age range), and each state
determines the level of consanguinity allowed (i.e., no states allow brother/sister
marriage, and most disallow first cousins from marrying, maybe even second
cousins). While the plaintiff’s law team made a show of reason and case law,
their argument boils down to, “You have to call homosexual relationships
equivalent to heterosexual marriage, because they want that, and you’re just
being mean.” It’s emotional, not logical.
Some of the questioning of the defense dealt with various
past cases and what each had contributed. Mostly they dealt with the question
of whether and how marriage had been defined. A case concerning whether inmates
could marry didn’t determine, for example, whether there was an inviolable
right to marry, but related somewhat to whether a marriage could take place if
there was no chance that the couple could consummate the marriage. Which really
leads to a germane question that gets danced around: is it marriage if the
couple does not intend to—and indeed cannot—consummate the marriage with the
act that marriage is concerned with? You know the one—the particular kind of
sex that can lead to procreation.
Some of the questions related to cases in which there is
infertility or age impediments to procreation. But those are old, and answered;
the law assumes that a man and wife with the appropriate genetics have the theoretical
possibility of being fertile, and so the law does not interfere on that basis.
However, failure to participate in the procreative sex act has been grounds for
annulment or divorce pretty much universally; it’s a breach of the marriage
contract.
What should be asked of same sex couples is, do you intend
to behave as a married couple? i.e., engage in the required type of procreative
act? And is it possible for you to do so with one another? If it isn’t
possible, genetically, then what they are asking us all to do is pretend
something is marriage that is not marriage. Our agreeing with them and
proclaiming it so will not make it marriage; that will only disregard the
underlying purpose of marriage.
Marriage may be much more than simply the sex act, but it
must be at least that. Love is not required, but that particular behavior is. So
to suddenly come up with a definition of “marriage” that excludes one of those
basic essential details of what marriage means seems imprudent at best—and a
hundred years hence will look foolhardy. There will not be (cannot be) progeny
from same-sex couples, so the progeny of that generation will ask, “What were
they thinking?”
 |
| Elder Dallin H. Oaks photo from MormonNewsroom.org |
In the wake of these marriage issues, there was a news conference this Tuesday, a relatively rare thing for The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, asking for protections for freedom
of religion. The whole twenty are worth hearing in context, but I’ll try to
summarize the three parts. Sister Neill Marriott represented Church Public
Affairs, and talked about respecting each other’s views and working together to
understand one another. Elder Dallin Oaks, who has been a state supreme court
judge, talked mainly about issues related to same-sex marriage—and the
persecution that has come upon those who stand for traditional marriage. He
pointed out that a people should be granted basic rights, and he enumerated
things like being able to find employment and housing. But he also asserted the
right for individuals to disagree on belief issues, and we should respect
rather than stifle the freedom to believe differently. He was followed by Elder
Jeffrey Holland, who spent much of his time concerning the larger questions of religious
freedom, such as being able to choose whom to hire or what services to perform
as a business, without coercion by government or pressure groups.
I thought they all three sounded reasonable and kind—extremely
kind. There was no hate speech there. Nor was there any new doctrine or shift
in policy. There was simply a declaration that the doctrine is what it is, and
while we can respect that many people don’t believe the same way, we request,
and firmly insist, that we have the right to our beliefs as well. We have been
kind and respectful, and we ask for that in response.
Whatever the Courts decide, God will still have His will, and it’s up to
us, in our personal ways, to go about aligning ourselves with that. Let’s pray
that the Courts don’t make things harder for any earnest believers.
