Marriage already has a meaning.
As the election approaches, one of the hot political topics in California is Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. If passed, it would add a new section (7.5) to Article I of the state constitution, that would read: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
For reasons I’ll explain below, I think some of the arguments regarding the proposition are very misleading. The main issue isn’t if marriage between non-heterosexuals is valid, but what the definition of marriage and family are. Having already fogged the definition of male and female, this must be the next step. It’s important to keep that clearly in mind when reading the positions of the advocates.
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-Day Saints distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” and announcing the Church’s participation with the ProtectMarriage coalition. The letter, which was read during church services in California, asked the members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment. The opposition has a web site at MormonsforMarriage which is presenting an alternate point of view.
The opponents of the measure argue that marriage is a fundamental and constitutionally protected human right which is guaranteed to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. The legislative trend would appear to support that assertion. (See the Wikipedia article on California Proposition 8 for details.) This is built up from two points; First, the United States Constitution protects the right of free assembly and association and second, both state and federal constitutions have equal protection clauses to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion.
The LDS Church statement asserts that the idea of marriage is the outgrowth of the historic relationship between a man and a woman as the foundation of a family unit. They quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states; “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Without need for reference to external authority (even God), it seems to me that there are some fundamental truths about the situation which are obvious, but being obscured in the present war of words. First is that for the vast majority of the population, it is easy to determine their biological gender, including those with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Second is that human sexual preference and behavior are not hardwired, in spite of what Mormons For Marriage claim on their web site. Current psycho- and sociological research and the use of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to identify which areas of the brain are involved in romantic love has shown why human sexual behavior is both complex and flexible; the wiring of the human brain is plastic, very much in support of the idea that humans have the ability to learn, choose and change and that sexual preference or “orientation” is determined by both genetic and environmental factors.
It appears to me that what is really going on is an effort to change the effect and impact of the law by changing the definition of words after the laws were written. It’s a form of bait and switch. If I’d like to get the benefits of the lower insurance premiums available to non-smokers, but I don’t want to quit smoking, I’ll pass a law that redefines what a smoker is. That way I’ll get the lower rate without having to overcome my addiction.
A lot of emotionally loaded words have been dragged into the argument and no one wants to be accused of being un-compassionate or bigoted. (That’s illegal as well as un-Christ-like.) The opponents of Prop 8 have whittled the definition of marriage down to the point that it’s not about sex and children and the familial obligations that come with them but solely about “love” and freedom of (sexual) expression. As with the sexual liberation movement, the goal seems to be to protect one’s “right” to have unprotected sex with whom-what-where-or-when ever one wants.
I find that particularly interesting, since historically children and families are precisely what result from male-female sexual relations. This is why changing the definition of marriage and breaking it away from it’s historical association with families can and will have far reaching consequences. If marriage doesn’t have to be about families anymore then it can be about anything we want.
Regardless of your stand on individual rights to reproduction or sexual expression, changing the meaning of words to get our way also has a name; trickery and deceit. Further, when we change the meaning of the rules in order to get our way there’s a name for that too; cheating.
According to the writings of the Sanhedrin, the peculiarity of Sodom was that there was a semblance of order and justice, and that the men claimed always to be in the right and law abiding, never doing any wrong, but their laws were perverted.
Freedom of choice is a fundamantal principle of our religious faith. However, transparency and integrity are also the foundations of our legal system and government. Changing the meaning of marriage to allow those who do not fit the defintion to obtain the benefits of those who do does hurt heterosexuals, by committing fraud, in spite of the California Supreme Court’s opinion.
Call it whatever you want, except marriage. Marriage already has a meaning.
Of you’d like to comment on this article, please do so on the Propositon 8 page.