We need to get some facts straight, and figure out the right position to take, and stand on it, or we are going to be picked to pieces by the vultures on the left, and never know what ate us. As clear as one might believe the Bible is in condemning homosexual activity—as it is on adultery, pornography, lying, stealing, envy and a host of other activities common in our culture, some but not all of which coincide with civil law—the Bible will not be the basis for the civil definition of marriage. To make it so will speed Conservatives’ defeat. Activists like those in Maine can turn it against us in the debate.

I propose that we put aside nuanced rhetoric and be clear and unembarrassed in our beliefs, and aggressively pursue legal means of protecting or regaining the proper definition of marriage, as follows.

1. Conservatives don’t believe in discrimination (jobs, taxes, access to public accommodations and services, etc.) on the basis of benign, immutable characteristics.  Homosexual inclinations are in many situations benign traits, but in other situations (military barracks, for instance) they are not benign.

Though it is not essential to this debate, we should note that immutability remains a scientific debate. The American Psychological Association recently pronounced that despite all the efforts to prove homosexuality is genetic, there “is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” (See here)

2. The term “relationship” applies to all sorts of legal and emotional interaction between humans. Conservatives believe everyone should be free to engage in relationships that the individuals deem appropriate, unless those relationships injure others. (As Thomas Jefferson said good government will “restrain men from injuring one another”) All sorts of contractual relationships are permitted, and discrimination is against the law. 

These relationships are based on economics as well as pleasure: I pay $40 to the proprietors for a day riding roller coasters at an amusement park; clients hire a professional to render particular services that bring them peace of mind, economic benefits or other satisfaction; two individuals with complimenting skill sets who trust each other agree to form a partnership for their mutual economic gain; one person appoints another (as his 'agent') to make medical decisions (power of attorney) for the individual.  The existence of homosexual inclinations makes no difference in these relationships.   

3. Conservatives also believe that there are some specific relationships which deserve government favor or recognition: parent-child relationships, for example deserve special treatment as compared to brother-sister, cousin-cousin, neighbor-neighbor, professional-client, principal-agent, etc.  Marriage between man and woman is one of those special relationships that deserves special recognition.

The relationship between a man and woman who have made a solemn religious vow and/or civil pledge to be husband and wife for life is called “marriage.”  Marriage is a unique relationship which goes beyond pleasure, economics, convenience, satisfaction or peace of mind.  It is not subject to the whim of the parties…they cannot simply agree to dissolve the relationship. 

The essence of marriage is that a man and woman are biologically designed to bear children when they engage in the intimate activities associated with such mutual promises of permanent fidelity, and their promises are held to a standard of legal permanence that assumes as at least one major purpose the nurturing of their offspring. Not only is this obvious from their physical makeup, but it is supported by thousands of years of civil and religious culture and law. I defy anyone to produce evidence that the term "marriage" has been used by any culture to define any other sort of relationship.  The commitment between two humans biologically designed (or “evolved” if you buy that explanation of origins—it matters not for this discussion) to procreate is one that has gained deserved governmental recognition and preferential treatment. 

The government has a long-term interest in the continued replacement of population. Some countries are providing direct financial incentives to its citizens who bear and rear children. (Don't believe me? Click here)

And for good reason. Various studies show that economies are suffering greatly, and the well-being of the elderly is in jeopardy, in large measure because of the declining birth rates. As fewer people have children and those who do bear less than “replacement” levels, our population is getting age-heavy, and there are insufficient producing individuals to provide for the elderly and to support the tax revenue required to deliver the social services promised to the elderly. (See Demographic Winter, for specifics.)

With the unique benefits—pleasure, companionship, security, and more—of the marriage relationship come inherent obligations.  The parties cannot opt out of their duties to the natural product of this unique union—a child. People of ordinary mental capacity recognize and embrace, at least at an emotional level, the natural duty of parent to care for their child even when it means subordinating their own desires. The law also enforces this duty: even giving up the child for adoption is subject to judicial approval, and permitted only if the well-being of the child is assured.  

In addition, marriage between man and woman creates a type of stability in society because of the inherent difference between men and women. By and large, they complement each other in a family or household, each brings strengths not found in the other, each filling a necessary role in the home. Even by the most basic biological differences such as the ability to nurse and usual disparity in physical strength for protecting and providing, nature makes evident that this is the proper balance and order in society.

Because it is the building block of the human race—since we accept the recognized value of life, the value of children, the value of new workers, the value of new voters, the value of new soldiers, the value of new doctors, the value of new scientists, and on and on—the government recognizes and gives special privileges to that solemn man-woman relationship called marriage. Because of the value it brings to culture we go on to provide incentives for marriage: the right to engage in consensual sex without shame (after all, premarital and extra-marital sex are still frowned upon in most religions and are illegal in some jurisdictions), inheritance rights, transfer tax exemptions, modest (barely!) income tax incentives, the right to be executor of an estate, and other such privileges. 

No homosexual (man-man or woman-woman) relationship, even if coupled with a public promise of lifelong monogamous commitment, can be compared fairly to marriage between man and woman. No homosexual relationship gives the government anything in return. Homosexual relationships are essentially about nothing more than the personal happiness and pleasure of the parties. This doesn’t mean we discriminate against people who want to have these kinds of relationships; it just means that such relationships should not entitle the participants to any special governmental incentives.

ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS:

“Marriage has evolved to being just about the mutual pleasure, companionship and happiness of the parties.” Inroads have been made, as acknowledged above. And the battle should not be conceded in that area.  If marriage is about pleasure of the parties and no-one else has the right to deny them the pleasure and happiness afforded people who love each other, then there would remain no reason to prohibit polygamy, for instance. Why not three men being married? Four women and two men? Under what theory would we prohibit incestuous marriages, so long as the parties are at the age of consent and take steps to assure no biological offspring result from their marriage? The definition has served civil society very well; there is no reason to start down the slippery slope.

 “There is discrimination in inheritance and other legal rights.” Some will argue that homosexuals are not allowed fairness with respect to inheritance rights, the right to be executor of an estate, the right to visit in the hospital, and other such privileges. This is exaggerated at least and in many instances absolutely misrepresented. Here is the truth. If a person has no will, his or her heterosexual spouse is probably the “default” heir and the “default” executor of the decedent’s will/estate. A spouse may be given “automatic” visitation privileges at the hospital.  But there are very few areas where the affirmative act of the parties cannot make these privileges equivalent for homosexuals. You can appoint not only your spouse (married, heterosexual), but about anyone who is of age—including your gay lover—as your health care proxy/agent (power of attorney) and thereby have them privileged to see your medical records, be involved in medical decisions, and visit you in the hospital. Further, the laws of every state allow individuals to appoint anyone—including their homosexual partner—to arrange for disposition of their body, and as the beneficiary to receive their estate. Modest tax advantages are still granted exclusively to a married couple; I submit they are more than justified by the procreative purpose they provide for the country.

“But marriage has evolved in many ways over the centuries; this is just one more of many.” The marriage relationship has evolved over the centuries, without a doubt. In different societies and times men have virtually “owned” the women, polygamy is practiced, marriages are arranged, and so forth. Many aspects of marriage have changed…about all but one, that is! Marriage has always been the joining of two humans of opposite physical gender, who are naturally designed for procreation.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  There is none.

“But not all marriages produce children, so you can’t limit the definition that way.”  Obviously, some married couples cannot have children; some have disabilities. Would you advocate discrmination against persons with physical disabilities?  We don’t penalize people of a particular clearly-defined category—gender—for being disabled in other ways, nor should we deprive them of the classification "marriage" because of some physical defect.  Their fundamental design--human male and female--fits, despite their physical impairment.

You further object that not all who marry and are capable of producing offspring do. Either they choose not to engage in the activities that lead to pregnancy, or they choose to interfere with the natural fertilization process, or even abort their child when they discover the pregnancy. Still, their natural state and design is for procreation; that they choose to reap the pleasurable benefits of marriage and reduce the “risk” of bearing children does not change the fundamental physical design. It could more easily be argued that the state has an interest in limiting access to birth control than in erasing the procreative design differences between men and women.

“The government has no business endorsing or providing incentives to marriage relationships at all.” This could be argued meritoriously only if we accept your definition of marriage, that is, as nothing more than a relationship for the mutual pleasure and happiness of the parties. If that is all marriage amounts to, then you truly are arguing for the abolition of the entire concept. That sort of relationship contributes nothing that the government has a valid interest in. Be careful what you wish for.

NO RELIGIOUS BASIS?

Of course there are many, many moral and religious bases for retaining the traditional definition of marriage. I leave those to our pastors and priests.  In the debate in the statehouses, Congress and courts, those bases simply are not given any weight. Rather, those arguments create the impression that the only reason we don’t want marriage redefined is because it violates “our religion”—and the lawyers and legislators don’t care about your religion or mine.