GAY MARRIAGE FINALLY EXPLAINED
In order to clearly understand the debate over same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand the theoretical framework in which the issues are framed. The following article aspires to do that.
TWO THEORIES ON MARRIAGE
The first theory that will be discussed is the theory of marriage as a “love license” which, in the words of Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s Proposition 8 notoriety, is granted by the state in “recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”
The love license theory emphasizes and puts first the happiness and fulfillment of adults and the state’s important role in helping to achieve this. It holds that the maximum achievable number of happy adults is best for the general well-being of society, that this will have a positive effect on the future of society, and that the government’s role must be to promote this goal. This theory is wholly embraced by the advocates of same-sex marriage and is their foundational premise.
The second is the theory of responsible procreation. This theory holds that the union of a man and a woman is an important part of responsible procreation and raising children because, among other things, it also sets the important example for children to follow what is historically recognized as the best relationship for procreation and parenting. It holds that well adjusted citizens, which are essential to a successful and enduring society, are the product of good parenting and that this is best achieved by a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship. It holds that the government has an important role in promoting this ideal and that this will best serve the well-being of any society that hopes to endure.
Evidently, if the opposite-sex union is the best model for procreation and parenting, then same-sex unions and others must occupy some inferior place for that purpose. This may be perceived by same-sex couples to mean that their unions are not as good as opposite-sex ones, which for the purposes of procreation and parenting is true. But if marriage does not concern procreation and parenting, as the adherents of the love license theory affirm, then same-sex unions cannot possibly be inferior to opposite-sex unions when the theory does not recognize procreation and, thus, would exclude this as a basis for comparison. Removing the standard of procreation and parenting has the effect of equalizing these relationships. It is only as measured against procreation and parenting that the same-sex union proves inferior, but this should not bother same-sex couples as they would not be comparing themselves to opposite-sex couples on that basis anyway. It is on the basis of love and commitment that the comparison is made, and these would be equal, but with one exception: according to the love license theory the only instance when marriage would be about procreation is when gay couples want to have children. It is never about procreation, however, when it concerns the state creating classifications based on the gender of the persons in the relationships that are to benefit from the government entitlement that is civil marriage. In that case, marriage is only about love and commitment.
It is precisely because same-sex couples subscribe to the love license theory that they perceive an inequality in treatment by the government and suffer badly the idea that their love relationships are inferior to the love relationships of opposite-sex couples when the latter are granted the status of marriage and they are not.
Thus, while the second theory explicitly invokes procreation and parenting as a necessary part of good social policy that is institutionalized by marriage, the first theory regards marriage more generally as a social welfare program for adults designed to promote their happiness and fulfillment and whose only link to procreation and parenting is merely in the deluded minds of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people as it has existed down through the ages. Except, of course, when having and raising children are to serve as life-style accessories to gay couples in very much the same way that owning a beautiful and expensive home, having a designer wardrobe or driving a SUV would be. These would all be to further the "state interest" of promoting adult happiness and fulfillment.
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THESE THEORIES
The consequences of the responsible procreation theory are already well known, as it has been the one that has been operative throughout human history and across all civilizations. So, it is really only the love license theory that bears closer examination and discussion as this one is very new.
The position of the proponents of the love license theory on marriage can be formulated as "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."
This is how it had been officially worded in the judicial ruling of Perry v. Schwarzenegger by one of the strong advocates of same-sex marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker. This position thus removes procreation and parenting from official state recognition as these seem to be deliberately no where mentioned and are striking for their absence.
Procreation and parenting, however, occur in a natural institution predating human civilization. Where it concerns human beings, responsible procreation theory affirms that marriage is a civilization’s official recognition of what is already a natural institution. This natural institution exists in nature and is governed by its laws. It exists in the animal kingdom in different forms. It exists among birds and bees, gorillas, monkeys, frogs, worms, dolphins, cats and dogs. And human beings as well. But any official recognition of the relationships among the lower life-forms in this natural institution has not and never has been granted to them by governments. Governments do not officially recognize the relationships among animals where it concerns procreation and parenting and neither has any ever granted to these relationships any officially recognized status. But they have done this where it concerns the relationships of human procreation and parenting.
Unfortunately, the love license theory of marriage takes away any official recognition of the human relationships in this natural institution. The official recognition of the relationships responsible for human procreation and parenting evaporates into nothingness and ceases to exist in the same way that the official recognition of the relationships responsible for procreation among birds, and bees, cats and dogs, frogs and worms does not exist. Certainly, men and women will continue to procreate and raise their children — there are still nature’s imperatives to respect — but their relationships in doing that will be officially invisible, indeed, officially non-existent, and they will be doing this outside of any official recognition or status…… just like the animals.
The love license theory is simply one that is anti-historical, anti-social, anti-civilizational and anti-human. If any political movement and its adherents can be said to be on the wrong side of history, the love license theory advocates are it.
Another undesirable consequence would be the creeping advancement of small, incremental tyrannies. Because the love license theory of marriage specifically establishes official governmental recognition and approval as part of the definition of marriage, and as how government in the American democratic system is the people, there would come to exist the notion, if not eventually the obligation, that people do officially approve of homosexual unions. It is one thing in a democratic system to legally recognize a particular status; it is something else entirely to approve of it and legally force this on the people. It is thoroughly unacceptable that a government supposedly “of the people, by the people and for the people” institute a policy of approval in direct opposition to the very will of the majority, as in the case of the recent trial on appeal over the California Marriage Amendment, or to even impose this on a minority, as this would be a direct infringement on the right of conscience. This is a government that would be setting itself apart from the people as a separate entity, a separate person, that could just as easily act in opposition to them and, if history is any guide, likely will.
TWO THEORIES ON MARRIAGE
The first theory that will be discussed is the theory of marriage as a “love license” which, in the words of Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s Proposition 8 notoriety, is granted by the state in “recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”
The love license theory emphasizes and puts first the happiness and fulfillment of adults and the state’s important role in helping to achieve this. It holds that the maximum achievable number of happy adults is best for the general well-being of society, that this will have a positive effect on the future of society, and that the government’s role must be to promote this goal. This theory is wholly embraced by the advocates of same-sex marriage and is their foundational premise.
The second is the theory of responsible procreation. This theory holds that the union of a man and a woman is an important part of responsible procreation and raising children because, among other things, it also sets the important example for children to follow what is historically recognized as the best relationship for procreation and parenting. It holds that well adjusted citizens, which are essential to a successful and enduring society, are the product of good parenting and that this is best achieved by a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship. It holds that the government has an important role in promoting this ideal and that this will best serve the well-being of any society that hopes to endure.
Evidently, if the opposite-sex union is the best model for procreation and parenting, then same-sex unions and others must occupy some inferior place for that purpose. This may be perceived by same-sex couples to mean that their unions are not as good as opposite-sex ones, which for the purposes of procreation and parenting is true. But if marriage does not concern procreation and parenting, as the adherents of the love license theory affirm, then same-sex unions cannot possibly be inferior to opposite-sex unions when the theory does not recognize procreation and, thus, would exclude this as a basis for comparison. Removing the standard of procreation and parenting has the effect of equalizing these relationships. It is only as measured against procreation and parenting that the same-sex union proves inferior, but this should not bother same-sex couples as they would not be comparing themselves to opposite-sex couples on that basis anyway. It is on the basis of love and commitment that the comparison is made, and these would be equal, but with one exception: according to the love license theory the only instance when marriage would be about procreation is when gay couples want to have children. It is never about procreation, however, when it concerns the state creating classifications based on the gender of the persons in the relationships that are to benefit from the government entitlement that is civil marriage. In that case, marriage is only about love and commitment.
It is precisely because same-sex couples subscribe to the love license theory that they perceive an inequality in treatment by the government and suffer badly the idea that their love relationships are inferior to the love relationships of opposite-sex couples when the latter are granted the status of marriage and they are not.
Thus, while the second theory explicitly invokes procreation and parenting as a necessary part of good social policy that is institutionalized by marriage, the first theory regards marriage more generally as a social welfare program for adults designed to promote their happiness and fulfillment and whose only link to procreation and parenting is merely in the deluded minds of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people as it has existed down through the ages. Except, of course, when having and raising children are to serve as life-style accessories to gay couples in very much the same way that owning a beautiful and expensive home, having a designer wardrobe or driving a SUV would be. These would all be to further the "state interest" of promoting adult happiness and fulfillment.
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THESE THEORIES
The consequences of the responsible procreation theory are already well known, as it has been the one that has been operative throughout human history and across all civilizations. So, it is really only the love license theory that bears closer examination and discussion as this one is very new.
The position of the proponents of the love license theory on marriage can be formulated as "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."
This is how it had been officially worded in the judicial ruling of Perry v. Schwarzenegger by one of the strong advocates of same-sex marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker. This position thus removes procreation and parenting from official state recognition as these seem to be deliberately no where mentioned and are striking for their absence.
Procreation and parenting, however, occur in a natural institution predating human civilization. Where it concerns human beings, responsible procreation theory affirms that marriage is a civilization’s official recognition of what is already a natural institution. This natural institution exists in nature and is governed by its laws. It exists in the animal kingdom in different forms. It exists among birds and bees, gorillas, monkeys, frogs, worms, dolphins, cats and dogs. And human beings as well. But any official recognition of the relationships among the lower life-forms in this natural institution has not and never has been granted to them by governments. Governments do not officially recognize the relationships among animals where it concerns procreation and parenting and neither has any ever granted to these relationships any officially recognized status. But they have done this where it concerns the relationships of human procreation and parenting.
Unfortunately, the love license theory of marriage takes away any official recognition of the human relationships in this natural institution. The official recognition of the relationships responsible for human procreation and parenting evaporates into nothingness and ceases to exist in the same way that the official recognition of the relationships responsible for procreation among birds, and bees, cats and dogs, frogs and worms does not exist. Certainly, men and women will continue to procreate and raise their children — there are still nature’s imperatives to respect — but their relationships in doing that will be officially invisible, indeed, officially non-existent, and they will be doing this outside of any official recognition or status…… just like the animals.
The love license theory is simply one that is anti-historical, anti-social, anti-civilizational and anti-human. If any political movement and its adherents can be said to be on the wrong side of history, the love license theory advocates are it.
Another undesirable consequence would be the creeping advancement of small, incremental tyrannies. Because the love license theory of marriage specifically establishes official governmental recognition and approval as part of the definition of marriage, and as how government in the American democratic system is the people, there would come to exist the notion, if not eventually the obligation, that people do officially approve of homosexual unions. It is one thing in a democratic system to legally recognize a particular status; it is something else entirely to approve of it and legally force this on the people. It is thoroughly unacceptable that a government supposedly “of the people, by the people and for the people” institute a policy of approval in direct opposition to the very will of the majority, as in the case of the recent trial on appeal over the California Marriage Amendment, or to even impose this on a minority, as this would be a direct infringement on the right of conscience. This is a government that would be setting itself apart from the people as a separate entity, a separate person, that could just as easily act in opposition to them and, if history is any guide, likely will.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 6:02 PM
1 comments
