The question, as it turns out, is ludicrous. Think about it. The question is irrelevant. The relevant questions, like "Is it right?" or "Is it rational?" or even "Is it moral?" are set aside and the question is about a very limited effect. Here, think about this obvious contrast. Let's say that there was a measure up to legalize polyamory. Any number of people could marry any number of people. Is this not the same question? "How would that affect you and your marriage?" And it wouldn't, would it? No, go even sillier. Now there is a move to allow marrying inanimate objects. Again, "How would that affect you and your marriage?" What is the point of the question? How does it affect me and my marriage if people do stupid things and call it "marriage"? It doesn't. My marriage is my marriage. So the short-term effect is not the question.
Still, there are answers to the question. There are certain, likely, or potential outcomes to consider. I have four primary effects to suggest[1].
First, as we already know, marriage is in trouble in general. More and more people are opting out, either before they get into it or after. Divorce rates are high. Cohabitation (shacking up) rates are high. It is not uncommon to hear, "Why does a little piece of paper make a difference?" Clearly it does (or the whole question wouldn't be in the marketplace of ideas), but marriage is weaker today than it has ever been. According to the CDC just in this century marriage rates in America have dropped from 8.2 per 1,000 people to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Even the Huffington Post reported that marriage rates are at historic lows. Enter this new thing. Already marriage is on the verge of merely being an emotional attachment. We "marry for love" and when that is gone, we stop being married. That's not how it ought to be. That's not what it used to be. That's not what all of history and most of the major world's religions think of it. (And if you think I'm being too alarmist, it has already been proposed that 2-year renewable marriage licenses be issued to cut down on divorce problems.) Marriage is the union, physical and emotional, of a man and a woman with an eye toward children. It is the ideal family unit. It is the functional propagation of the species, the optimum environment for producing and raising children. But, look, let's strip that off, okay? Tina Turner asked, "What's love got to do with it?" We'll ask, "What have kids got to do with it?" And when we, as a society, push propagation out the back window of marriage and usher in "marry for love", it's a paradigm shift. No longer are spouses to maintain an unbroken relationship of commitment and cooperation for the family. Instead, it's a commitment to my emotions first. While traditional marriage brings social pressure to bear to keep couples and families together, redefining it will further ease that pressure and just let things dissolve as they may. Two of the worst things that have happened to marriage are contraception and "no-fault" divorce. One put families on hold, sometimes indefinitely, and the other made ending a lifelong commitment an easy thing. This new definition will simply push it that much further ... on both points.
Second, parenting is in jeopardy today. The skyrocketing rates of single parents is, frankly, frightening. Absentee fathers are a big problem, but mothers today are following similar trends, with more and more women making the news for killing or abusing their children. And why not? We are told that we need to find ourselves, to seek our own happiness. So why let those brats get in the way? Still, we all know that the best possible arrangement for raising children is a stable, mother-father, husband-wife home. There really is no question of that. And recent studies find, shock of shocks, that children fare better in traditional mom-dad families while same-sex parenting may have its risks. I know, I know, the American Psychological Association (APA) came out with its own study a short while ago and assured us that children of same-sex couples did just fine. Well, as it turns out, that whole study seems to be in question now. Enter a new definition of "married". Now the law will require that no regard be given to "husband-wife" marriages over "same-sex" unions ... because they're the same, right? Isn't that the point? They're the same? And then, as obscured as good parenting has become in recent decades, the ideal gets further obscured. The message is clear. Same-sex couples are just as good, just as appropriate, just as ideal as any other couple might be. And now it's the children who take the hit.
Third, we know that America is built on freedom and we know that this freedom includes, at its core, the freedom of religion. This very freedom, however, has caused a difficulty. Americans tend to confuse "equal protection" with "equal validity". Trying to suggest that, while all religions are protected under the law, not all are equally valid will likely get you into a fight. You're narrow-minded, judgmental, intolerant. Never mind that it's the only logical possibility. It's still wrong. Now throw in a governmental ruling on a moral issue that makes the moral issue not only legal, but endorsed. Say goodbye to your religious freedoms in the area of moral issues. And don't consider this a slippery slope argument because it's happening already. In Massachusetts Catholic Charities had to give up its adoption services because they would be required to ignore their principles in regard to placing children with same-sex couples. A student in California was banned from school for stating an opinion about the morality of homosexual behavior. A Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ruled that public schools may teach that homosexual relations are moral without regard for parental disagreement. A New Mexico photographer was sued and lost because she wasn't willing to do photos for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Oh, it's no nebulous slippery slope. It's happening. When the State rules that "marriage" now includes "same-sex" couples the fundamental freedom of religion and your right to express yourself on matters of morality will begin to see their legal end. And that's without even considering the tide of public opinion. It is already a "certainty" that if you stand for traditional marriage, you only do so out of hate and bigotry. It's a lie, but that kind of thinking is becoming more and more dominant and we would expect it to get worse, not better, if the State rules against traditional marriage.
The fourth issue is the change of the norm. When we changed from divorce to "no-fault divorce", the change wasn't simply to make things easier for people. The change produced a fundamental impression of what was normal. It became common to divorce simply because one or the other parties wanted the relationship to end. So no longer was a marriage "for life"; it was just until we decided we didn't want it anymore. The only reason required for divorce was "irreconcilable differences", which could mean just about anything at all. This is just an example of the shift of norm that the changing of laws produces. Adultery was once illegal just about everywhere, but over time we've dropped those laws. The upshot is that adultery has become viewed as relatively normal. Laws have been enacted to give unmarried couples the same rights as married couples and today the general sense is that not only is "shacking up" normal, it is recommended ... despite all the studies to the contrary. By changing the definition of marriage by force of law, we will have our sense of "normal" shifted again.
There are consequences to these things. It may look as if it won't matter. I will remain married to my wife in the same way that I always have, and I will continue to teach my children (okay, they're grown -- make it "grandchildren") right and wrong regardless of what my society says is moral. I will certainly lose some freedom of religion, but the Bible assures me that the animosity of the world is to be expected. And the world around me will continue to shift "normal morality" to match the changes. I have to point out, however, that all of this misses a very important point. Consider a situation that we all agree would be bad. What if they legalized heroin use? The same argument could be used. "Why would you care? How will it affect you?" And, in truth, it wouldn't in the sense that I still wouldn't be taking heroin, legal or not. On the other hand, it would have a large effect. Crime would change, and not necessarily for the better. Attitudes toward heroin use would change. There would be more users, more addicts, and more of the effects that such things cause. Society, then, would be paying for the impact of this new legal addiction. And the change would be permanent. Like Prohibition, it's not possible to put that genie back in the bottle. Legalizing heroin, it might be argued, won't change my life, but it will. It will change the face of the society in which I live and have multiple ramifications that will impact everyone, user or not. Even so with this radical redefinition of marriage. Sure, I'll remain married to my wife in the way I always have, but life will change for everyone in ways that not everyone recognizes will be unpleasant. The face of families will change. The face of parenting will change. The face of religious freedom will change. The face of normal morality will change. And those who would wish to affect change from these changes will be outlawed. Like putting toothpaste back into the tube.
________
[1] I say "suggest", but, in fact, these are mostly derived from the effects already present in other countries where marriage was legally redefined to include two people of the same sex. All of these are already occurring in Canada, for instance. There is no reason we shouldn't anticipate the same. And as I've often said, a "slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy if it is already happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment