Clueless in Seattle

Lawmakers in Washington State expanded their state's anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation earlier this year. The new law which went into effect in July prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, lending and insurance. This, of course, has been a growing trend among both private and public entities for some time.

However, the Washington law is presently facing a legal challenge that holds enormous implications for taxpayers, private employers and society's commitment to marriage and the traditional family in general.

One month after the new law went into effect, Sandi Scott-Moore, a Redmond-based employee of Honeywell International filed a claim with the state Human Rights Commission claiming that her company's refusal to provide health insurance benefits to her unmarried male partner represents unlawful discrimination because they "are not of the same gender."

A spokesman for Honeywell, Robert Ferris said "the company does provide health benefits for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees and has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination. But the company disagrees with Scott-Moore."

Now I may be little obtuse here but how can you extend company paid benefits to the unmarried partner of a homosexual couple but not provide similar benefits to the unmarried partner of a heterosexual couple and NOT be guilty of unlawful discrimination? The point here is not to defend the claim of Sandi Scott-Moore but to point out the logical absurdity of such laws. Furthermore, if Scott-Moore is successful in her claim then the whole basis upon which such benefits are offered is completely undermined to the point that employers, both public and private, may be forced to extend such benefits to any and every "partner" claimed by the employee.

Logically speaking, on what possible grounds could the state find her claim without merit since the state has already decided that the traditional definition of "marriage" is no longer the exclusive and only acceptable definition of domestic arrangements? Why not cohabitating heterosexual couples? The state has, in essence, already redefined marriage and the family to be any number or type of "arrangements." This creates the proverbial Pandora's Box in which, by the abandonment of the one true definition of marriage and the natural family, any definition becomes possible.

Marriage is not a universal right; it is instead a particular responsibility. In reality, legal marriage is a restriction of the rights of the individuals involved that derive from their procreative potential and subsequent responsibility to their offspring and society. The so-called marital benefits that same-sex couples seek have been reserved for traditional families by society as both an incentive and reward for their commitment to lifelong fidelity and for preserving the best possible environment for regulating their procreative potential and subsequent child rearing. Since same-sex couples do not posses procreative potential nor fulfill this social responsibility they are simply not eligible for marriage and the accompanying benefits.

It is this procreative potential that makes traditional marriage unique among all human relationships. The manner and place in which children come into being and are ultimately reared is in the highest interest of every civilization. Thus the state has a compelling interest in the preservation of traditional marriage and should guard and promote an exclusive understanding of marriage that serves this interest. This is why marital benefits have traditionally also been withheld from unmarried cohabitating couples despite their procreative potential. Society has historically recognized their implicit refusal to fully commit to this social responsibility and by withholding benefits the incentive remains to marry.

The proven societal benefits of marriage and the natural family only remain in effect where it is socially reinforced within this narrow understanding. Once redefined to become anything it becomes nothing and the family degenerates bringing with it a whole host of societal ills. These include everything from increased crime to diminished productivity. There is not one single example in all of human history where sexual opportunities were extended to accommodate other arrangements and that civilization did NOT collapse as a direct result.

The case in Washington State only exposes the moral confusion and cost that ensues once we begin to deviate from God's moral design and attempt arbitrary distinctions. The costs to employers, consumers, and taxpayers will ultimately increase as a direct result of our collective accommodation of what God calls sin. Society's commitment to marriage will further erode and the family will become even more fragile; more children will suffer the effects of family dissolution and the energy of our civilization will dissipate.

These policies represent misguided attempts by legislators to appease special interests without thinking through the consequences. Thus they are "clueless" with regard to the historical record and social necessity of universal moral norms that conform to reality and human experience. In essence, such public policy sows the seeds of our own destruction and only those indifferent to the facts think otherwise.

Copyright S. Michael Craven 2006

Comment on this article here

You can listen to this message online here

S. Michael Craven is the Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture, a ministry of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The Center for Christ & Culture is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to recapture and demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, additional resources and other works by S. Michael Craven visit: www.battlefortruth.org

Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.