UNSPEAKABLE UNIONS? - THE FLIMSY CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

UNSPEAKABLE UNIONS? - THE FLIMSY CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

Stephen Chapman
Thursday, January 25, 1996
COMMENTARY

A specter is haunting conservatives: gay marriage. The state of Hawaii is moving toward sanctioning homosexual unions, and that prospect has induced something approaching apoplexy on the right. Some opponents regard this as one of the defining political issues of the day. They want other states to refuse to recognize such marriages--a departure from the custom that a marriage transacted in one state is accepted by all.

But why is there such resistance? This is not a zero-sum game. If homosexuals win the right to wed, the victory doesn't come at the expense of heterosexuals, who will retain all the pleasures, prerogatives and duties that come with matrimony.

Much of the opposition stems from religious objections. "We just believe it's plain immoral," said Tim Wildmon, vice president of the American Family Association. "It goes against the Holy Scriptures."

It may come as a revelation to Wildmon that American law and the 10 Commandments are two different things. We call ourselves a free society partly because we permit all sorts of things that "go against the Holy Scriptures"--blasphemy, fornication, making graven images, Sabbath-breaking, coveting your neighbor's maidservant and more.

The supposed moral offense that upsets conservatives is sexual relations between gays--which is already permitted nearly everywhere. If Americans can tolerate gay sex, why not gay marriage?

Conservatives, of course, do not willingly tolerate gay sex. But some of their thinkers have tried to come up with reasons to oppose gay marriage that are somewhat more persuasive than invoking Leviticus. The effort only demonstrates the emptiness of their cause. What they are engaged in is not reasoning but rationalization.

The primary objection from Christian Action Network president Martin Mawyer is that if gays gain the right to wed, "marriage as an institution will be rendered meaningless." Society encourages marriage, he says, solely because "it is likely to produce a greater good, namely children, who are necessary for any society's existence."

But not everyone who gets married has children, and not everyone who has children gets married. We allow unions between people who don't want children and people who can't have children.

Marriage, conservatives argue, provides a vital framework for raising children. But gay couples also raise children--either children one of them has produced or children they have adopted. There is no law to stop a lesbian mother from bringing up her own son in a household that includes her female partner.

Robert Knight of the Family Research Council says homosexual conduct has to be discouraged to preserve traditional marriages, which are precious because "the stability they bring to a community benefits all." But allowing gay marriage would advance the same interest by discouraging promiscuity and encouraging commitment--the opposite of what current policy does. If it's good for society when straight couples settle down in permanent, legally sanctioned relationships, why is it bad when gay couples do likewise?

Because it would set a terrible precedent, according to Amherst College professor Hadley Arkes. Next thing you know, he warns, we'll have to allow marriage between men and boys, between fathers and daughters, even between multiple partners. Knight goes further, fearing that some men will want to marry dogs.

Here we have passed into outright hallucination. Why does legalizing gay marriage lead to man-boy unions, any more than allowing heterosexual marriage leads to man-girl unions? Children may not marry for a simple reason that is irrelevant to gay marriage: They can't give true consent.

As for incestuous pairings, they would doubtless remain illegal because they undermine a taboo that is crucial to the protection of children and because they carry health risks for potential offspring.

Polygamy? If two women are happy to marry the same man and live together in a family, subject to the same strictures as two-partner marriages, there is no obvious reason to stop them. But such arrangements would be rare. There are lots of unmarried gay couples in America but very few unmarried men cohabiting with several women.

These arguments serve mainly to obscure the issue, not illuminate it. Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays.

Back