Defense of Marriage or Prohibition, Part II

Discuss this on our boards!

Defense of Marriage or Prohibition, Part II
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

February 11, 2004

"Leaning Left"

James Hall Yes, marriage is under assault these days. But the assault against it comes from a 50% divorce rate and a culture increasingly accepting of live-in relationships. President Bush wants to spend $1.5 billion dollars on a program to turn those things around.

Yet an entire group of people eagerly seeking marriage can't get it. These people want the personal commitment, economic stability and legalization of family ties and guardianship that marriage creates. But these people are gays.

It is said that a majority of Americans want to deny them this blessing. So is the majority right? Once a majority of Americans held that women shouldn't vote, that slavery was okay, and later that "separate but equal" institutions for blacks and whites was the natural order of things. A majority opposed interracial marriage at one time.

Opinions change. But some social conservatives want to stop any gay unions permanently by making a ban a part of our constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress would take the regulation of marriage out of the hands of the states and put it in the hands of the federal government.

The would-be 'defenders' of marriage argue that granting licenses and right marriage rights to gays somehow damages the institution. Yet gay marriage is now possible in Canada and some European countries and the world has not tipped off its axis. Married couples are still married-it's just that some of them happen to be of the same sex.

Two arguments against gay marriage are most often made. The first is that marriage is a sacred (i.e., religious) institution. On that argument, the Constitution has already spoken. Individuals and groups in our great land are free to practice their religious beliefs, including their beliefs on who is marriageable within their churches, synagogues, or temples.

But marriage doesn't depend on one's religious beliefs in this country. The trip to the altar, and the second trip to the clerk of courts to file the proper paperwork for a recognized legal marriage are separate trips, and one needn't make the former to make the latter.

The second major argument is that the very idea of gay marriage harms the nation's youth. Exactly how the harm occurs has not been dealt with in any scientific way that I'm aware of. Where is the data supporting this claim? We do know that divorce often has a negative effect on children, and we speculate that couples "living in sin" might also, but no movement to ban divorce or common law arrangements is in the offing.

At this very minute thousands, if not millions of kids are living in families where the heads of their households are gay. Thousands if not millions of others know of kids living with gay parents. If some demonstrable harm is being done, I'd like to see at least a few examples before I amend the nation's principle political document.

Thankfully, actual amendments to our constitution are rare enough-only seventeen have been made since the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Most of these amendments have broadened and extended our constitutional freedoms to groups that did not have them. But least one of those amendments was later judged a serious mistake--Article 18, which prohibited the manufacture and selling of alcohol, was thereafter repealed by Article 21. The desire of social conservatives to end the social and moral scourge of drinking and rampant alcoholism gave way to the banning of drinking and manufacturing alcoholic beverages.

In Prohibition's case, the social and religious morality of a simple majority conflicted with the basic rights of individuals to govern their own lives. Today the exceptionable practice is something called homosexual marriage or civil union. A new Prohibition may convince "defenders of marriage" that their sacrament is safe for now, but in the long run, any diminishing of freedoms runs contrary to the spirit of our nation and its constitution, and won't stand. ***

James Hall
Orlando, FL USA

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files