This is a 'great' article...
California’s gay marriage ruling is not progress, it’s regression
Let me ask a question or two.
Since humanity knows so many different forms of meaningful relationships – between friends, siblings, cousins, college roommates…pick one – why is it that every society throughout human history has bestowed special favor and status on the relationship between men and women who commit to one another for life? Why is it that this unique relationship – and no other – has been called “marriage?”
Here’s the answer: It is because every society has seen the value of formalizing the tie between men and women who bear and raise children.
The California Supreme Court dealt a blow to this reality last week when it legalized same sex marriage. Their reckless and overreaching decision represents social and cultural regression, not progress.
We’ve spent all of human history figuring out the best ways to order our lives to increase human flourishing. And virtually every society in human history has concluded that one of the keys to this is elevating marriage between men and women to a special class of relationship – the reason being that the future of society depends on the well-being of children, and the well-being of children is largely determined by the relationship between those who conceived and bore them.
The California Supreme Court has arrogantly concluded that every society in human history got it wrong and that history doesn’t matter. With this ruling (and others), marriage has gone from being about the needs of children to being about the desires of adults.
Now, let’s be clear. This issue is not about whether or not homosexuals are equal citizens deserving of equal rights. Of course they are. And it’s not a question about whether or not they can form meaningful relationships. They do. But gays and lesbians already have the right to form meaningful relationships, as we all do. We just don’t call every important relationship we have “marriage.”
Also, bear in mind that the right to marry has always come with restrictions. Nobody has ever been able to marry whomever they want. We can’t marry a close relative; we can’t marry someone who’s currently married to someone else; we can’t marry someone who’s underage; we can’t marry someone of the same gender; etc. In fact, advocates for same sex marriage are willing to maintain most of those restrictions.
So, in other words, we’re not debating that a line should be drawn in determining who can and cannot marry, but simply where to draw it. But to understand where that line should be drawn, we must understand the historic public purpose of bestowing a special status to the committed and procreative (and often romantic) relationship between a man and a woman. It’s about kids. And it’s about human wellbeing and the common good.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, California Chief Justice Ronald George was asked about the majority opinion he wrote. He compared the battle to gain same-sex marriage to the battle to strike down laws that forbade interracial marriage. But there are fundamental differences between these cases. Courts that ruled that people cannot be prevented from marrying based solely on their race affirmed our historical understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman. Essentially, anti-interracial marriage statutes were not only racist laws that demeaned people, they also redefined marriage by making race a determining factor in whether or not a couple could marry.
In the same L.A. Times article, Chief Justice George also mused about the evolution in his thinking and said, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
