Why I Still Support the Traditional Definition of Marriage

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States made several bad decisions related to DOMA and Proposition 8.  I just want to point them out:

1.      If the federal government cannot define the reception of federal benefits based on the values of the nation as a whole, whose values do we use?

2.      If a body of people who put a plebiscite (ballot initiative) on the ballot doesn’t have standing to sue for that initiative’s enforcement, who does?  How do “We the People” then force the government to enforce the ballot initiatives we create?

I don’t want to write in detail about these legalistic and constitutional problems, mainly because I don’t really have the training to fully understand them.  A bachelor’s degree in Political Science only gives me a generalist’s training in government and law.

Instead, I’d like to write about what motivates me to support the traditional definition of marriage, even though some will say that an acceptance of homosexuality is “historically inevitable.”  In doing so, I’d like to note that we live in a pluralistic society, one where it’s understood that rational people can disagree emphatically about controversial issues.  I know it irks some gay rights activists, but I really don’t hate anyone.

Hatred is an emotion, and regardless of what my political beliefs are, as long as I’m not advocating violence (which I absolutely do not) no one can imply that I “hate” someone simply because I disagree with their world view.  I work for an openly gay supervisor, and I’m fine with that.  Similarly, I don’t fear anyone (a.k.a., homophobia) simply because I disagree with the LBGT political agenda.

Just as I cannot infer that someone “hates” Christians simply because they disagree with Christian values, so others cannot infer that I “hate” homosexuals simply because I’m not willing to reward their behavior.  I don’t hate gays, I simply disagree with them.

My support of traditional marriages stems from my values.  I believe that monogamous, permanent, heterosexual relationships are the ideal sexual relationship because that is what God has said.  In my religious tradition, this injunction has been repeated  both in ancient and modern revelation. 

Surprised?  I’ll bet no one is.  Most activists who support traditional marriage support traditional values.  Such values are often informed by religion, and THAT’S ALL RIGHT.  True, there is a growing body of sociological evidence that points to traditional marriage as the best place for children to grow up, and that’s a powerful argument.  However, sociology doesn’t motivate people to political activism; instead, the primary motivation (even to seek such sociology) is rooted in one’s prior values, including religious values. 

The Constitution, of course, does well to separate the institutions of Church and State.  The varying opinions of men and interpretations of religion would quickly make tyranny the norm should those two institutions merge in any degree in a government of men.  However, this separation only extends so far.  While the government cannot and should not require any religious observance (no religious test for office), it is too much to expect that voters should forget their values the moment they walk into a voting booth.

 As a result, when the electorate is called on to define their social institutions, and to determine which behaviors it would like to reward and incentivize, values (both religious and secular) inextricably enter the equation.

Some counter by saying that marriage is a right which is denied to those living a homosexual lifestyle, and that such denial is arbitrary.  My response is that such a statement requires a certain worldview that can be neither proven nor disproven (that’s called a “value”) that says that homo- and heterosexual lifestyles are equally worthwhile.

In the end, then, the best way for society to determine how to define its social institutions is through an aggregation of its values.  In short, a plebiscite, or “put it to a vote.”  The ballot initiative called Proposition 8 did precisely this.  If the electorate of one state wants to reward and incentivize homosexual relationships, so be it.  If another doesn’t, so be it.

But what of those who say that homosexuality is part of who they are, something they cannot change and, as a result, something that has to be accepted by society?  I see a large difference between sexual intuition and sexual behavior.  Sexual intuition is wired in the body, with varying levels of plasticity, meaning that sexual orientation can sometimes be defined by one’s nature.  That nature can change and shift; look to the ex-gay movement for examples of those who have changed from homosexual to heterosexual natures; conversely, there are many examples of people who have lived happily married as heterosexuals and then “come out of the closet.”

This is because sexual behavior is only informed by, rather than defined by, sexual intuition.  Many, if not all, people restrain their sexual behavior in order to conform to social norms.  The growing social taboo against sexual harassment in the workplace is proof positive that social norms can successfully constrain sexual activities.  It is ethically required in our culture to treat women, in the workplace and out, with respect.

If we expect our social norms to successfully constrain some sexual activities, why then does one person’s sexual orientation require society to accept their lifestyle?  This conclusion only follows if it is accompanied by the secular value that homo- and heterosexual behaviors are equally worthwhile.  Without that unproven and non-disprovable value, the argument falls on its face.

The purpose of civilization itself is to take us beyond our animal instinct, to have us act not just on instinct, but through the prisms of reason and morality.  A CNN opinion author recently wrote that monogamy is unnatural.  I agree, but I still think monogamy is ideal.  Our fallen natures seek both good and evil.  Not all that is artificial is bad, and not all that is natural is good.  The whole point behind values and ideals is that they make us better.  Sexual ideals are ideals not because they best reflect who we already are but because of who they make us become.

In the end, the definition of marriage is all about values and ideals.  The religious right is generally honest about this fact, while the secular left has been rather hypocritical, calling itself the only “rational” choice, claiming that it’s a “civil rights” question.  Some will say that I am “horrifyingly closed minded” simply because I don’t share the assumption that homosexual instinct is good and natural.  I know it is quite natural, but like my own predilection towards gluttony and obesity, it isn’t necessarily healthy.  Like all morality, the morality of homosexuality should be judged external to self, for the mere existence of a thing does not make that thing good or bad.

I do not want to withhold marital benefits from homosexuals because I feel they are bad people.  We’re all bad people trying (with varying levels of effort) to be good people.  Instead, I feel that I cannot in good conscience support social institutions that reward and incentivize a lifestyle I believe is morally wrong.   I don’t hate those who live homosexual lifestyles—I just disagree with them.