Gay Marriage and California's Proposition 8

Few things get me as riled up as being called an African-American (I am a black American of mixed ancestry), and moreover, being marginalized by the mainstream media since I am a black conservative who is not the unthinking acolyte of the Democratic Party they prefer. I’m so sorry to disappoint. But that discussion is for another day, as the next thing on my list is the notion that I am also a religious bigot for having voted in favor of California’s Proposition 8.

It deeply offends me that the issue of gay marriage would in any way be compared to the civil rights movement that gave blacks the long overdue freedoms we enjoy today. Over the course of almost 400 years my ancestors were subject to unspeakable brutality and almost complete exclusion from the everyday lives that white Americans enjoyed. Today all Americans, both gay and straight, have equal protections under the law in terms of their ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. So I would strongly disagree with those that have termed being gay “the new black.” Thankfully no gay person as a matter of course has to live in fear of being beaten without provocation, hung by lynch mobs, having their houses burned down by hooded night riders, or being denied a meal at their local restaurant. We have indeed come a long way as a country. Thus it is not my belief that gays are being denied a civil right since traditional marriage has been defined as exclusively between a man and a woman.

My bold assertion is that the issue of gay marriage is a societal one, and not one of civil rights. I say this because marriage itself is not a right in the first place, whether gay or straight. Traditional marriage is an institution, which has been considered a sacred commitment between a man and a woman for millennia. The relation between man and woman is clearly the natural order that allows for the continuation of our species, and is also devoid of the inevitable conflicts of polygamy or concubinage, which have arguably been around as long as marriage (of which the Bible describes but does not condone, contrary to popular belief). Marriage has also been considered a stabilizing force in society, which is precisely why it has been encouraged by governments over the centuries as an institution to be upheld.

Now proponents of gay marriage will argue that marriage should be defined as a lifelong commitment to a loving relationship, and that this commitment is equivalent regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved. But from a human physiology perspective, it is obvious there is no equivalence due to the inability of same sex couples to naturally procreate (miracles of modern science notwithstanding). What is equally important and of even greater impact is the societal aspect of redefining marriage. If the definition of marriage were to be expanded to include gay marriage, then it would have to be sufficiently flexible to include any and all possible arrangements of loving, committed relationships that must include those that are polygamous as well as incestuous. It would be unconscionable to allow gay marriage on the grounds of civil rights and then deny the same rights to those who feel their legitimately consenting relationships are also equivalent to traditional marriage.

In order to make the civil case for gay marriage, it is often argued that being gay has a genetic component, which is a topic currently under heated scientific debate. We may never know for sure to what degree this may be the case, but what we do know is that the practice of gay relationships is based on conscious behavior, unlike the purely genetic basis for skin color. So if the issue continues to be fought on the grounds of civil rights, then it opens the door to virtually any group of people declaring themselves to be a minority that can legitimately claim certain civil rights. Add a genetic component or propensity, and conscious behavior becomes a nonfactor giving way to genetic determinism. Is society ready to offer minority status and concomitant protections based on what genes may cause us to do?

Fundamentally, the issue before us is societal as well as behavioral, in that we must decide if marriage will be redefined to include any and all arrangements amongst consenting adults that are committed to lifelong loving relationships as normative. If we open marriage up to interpretation, then let’s be fair and allow legitimate parties to decide if they wish to declare their arrangement as marriage. Clearly, I am not in favor of this approach, as my goal is to point out that a culture which wholeheartedly discards long held and well-reasoned societal norms forged over centuries, in the misguided spirit of relativism and inclusivism, is on a slippery slope that descends into irrelevance and ultimately ruin from within. I am not saying that the redefinition of marriage accomplishes this end, but would be a major step towards a culture increasingly devoid of the requisite norms that buttress all great societies.
share on: facebook