“Words matter. Names matter.”(1)

    This is how Therese Stewart and her team of lawyers began their oral arguments defending San Fransisco’s issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Their argument was that applying any label other than “marriage” to same-sex couples sent a message, though an implicit one, that same-sex couples were different and inferior to opposite sex couples. The supreme court of California ultimately agreed and ruled that the California Constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry, though that ruling was ultimately overturned by a majority of California voters via Proposition 8.  In the mind of many gay-rights advocates, however, it seems that their argument can’t possibly apply to other words and names.

     When the state department announced it would be removing the terms “mother” and “father” on passport forms to be replaced by “gender neutral” terminology, gay rights groups applauded the decision. (2)  I think I understand where they are coming from. From their point of view, “parent 1 and parent 2” more accurately describes their situation. However, it is a two-edged sword. Removing “mother” and “father” not only less accurately describes most families, it sends a message, though an implicit one, that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers—any combination of “parents” will do.

     This highlights one of the most sweeping effects of accepting same-sex “marriage,” one that I do not believe a lot of people pay sufficient attention to. Namely, that holding up same-sex couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples means, again, perhaps only implicitly, that we believe as a nation that men and women are fungible.  Most supporters of same-sex “marriage” that I know base their opinion on what I believe to be absolutely noble reasons: they deplore the mistreatment or marginalization of any human being, no matter how different. What I wish they would recognize is that the way we view marriage and family affects more than one marginalized group. It affects a myriad of social questions, including the way we view men and women, and what we mean by “best interests” of children.  Are we really ready to insist, as a matter of policy, that when it comes to parenting, there aren’t any differences between men and women?

     Unfortunately, many that are truly serious about their advocacy for gay rights are prepared to say precisely that and more.  In one discussion I was involved in, I asked my friend if he truly believed that gender is completely irrelevant in parenting. He not only responded in the affirmative, but went on to say that both he and I were only attached to our biological parents at all because we had grown up with them. He stated flatly that if he had never known his biological mother or father, he would not have loved his adopted parents any differently nor would he suffer any psychological harm (as long as his arrangement had a stable income).  He said that my thinking that having a biological connection to a caregiver made a difference in our well being was merely a product of social construction and tradition.  Sadly, it seems our conversation was not entirely unique. (3)

     In a way, he has a very valid point. Single, step, and otherwise non-traditional family structures provide children with love and support for which those children, rightly, love and appreciate them.  They go on to lead to lead lives that positively contribute to society for which society, too, owes them.  What I do not think is valid, is the idea that these alternative arrangements are just as preferable as being raised by one’s biological parents.  All things being equal, I hope that most reasonable people still agree that, in an ideal world, every child would be raised by his or her biological parents in a committed, stable union.(4)  These alternative arrangements become necessary when the ideal doesn’t work out.  But what same-sex marriage means, directly this time, is that there is no ideal—alternative structures are equally desirable as any other family form.  There isn’t anything wrong with a child being introduced to these structures by default, in fact, they should be celebrated!

     I don’t know about you, but I can appreciate alternative family forms for what they often are: arrangements that are the best thing for the child, given that things couldn’t work out with his or her parents (which is why I can also appreciate adoption).  But what I cannot bring myself to do is celebrate upon seeing more and more of these arrangements.  What a step-family or single-parent, or any other household headed by anything other than one’s biological parents means, at least in part, is the disintegration of another family--which is associated with a whole host of problems.(5)

     Fortunately, the state department has retained some sense. Hilary Clinton stepped in and insisted that passport forms (at least for now) retain the words “mother” and “father,” except now it will ask for something akin to “mother or parent 1” and “father or parent 2” (6)—a conspicuous relegation that sends another strong implicit message about fathers.(7)  Then again, I suppose it is unreasonable to expect a compromise to be completely flawless.

     And that is my final point. I sympathize with what gay activists are trying to do. We all want dignity and to feel like we are being treated equally.  Interestingly, many of those who are uncompromising in their support of traditional marriage genuinely want the same thing for those who feel attraction to their same sex.(8)  But equality should mean treating all people fairly, not treating a gender-based and child-centered institution as a means to accommodate sexual preferences that are genuinely outside what the institution was designed for.(9)


(1)  Commonwealth Club of California, “Marriage Equality: Panel Discussion on Proposition 8,” “http://fora.tv/2008/09/02/Marriage_Equality_Panel_Discussion_on_Proposition_8”

(2)  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

(3) “http://www.ruthinstitute.org/newsletters/June2010/noStraightMenAllowed.html”

(4) As David Popenoe states, summing up the scholarly consensus: “Social science research is almost never conclusive . . . yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of the evidence is decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single parent families or stepfamilies.” (Life Without Father, New York, NY: Mark Kessler Books/The Free Press, 1996, 8).

(5) See “Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” WB Wilcox, W Doherty, N Glenn, L Waite – New York: Institute for American Values, 2005. pp 8-10, 14,15,17.  See Also Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic, April 1993, at 47  The author also recognizes the difference in willful dissolution of marriages and situations that are genuinely outside anyone’s control, such as the death of a spouse.

(6) “http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/10/mother-and-father-to-remain-on-passport-forms-after-clinton/”

(7) Jennifer Roback Morse, “New Improved Disposable Father,” 8/21/2008, “http://www.ruthinstitute.org/articles/disposableFather.html”

(8) “[Mormon] Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances,” November 10, 2009,  “http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances”

(9) Jennifer Roback Morse, “The Institution Formerly Known As Marriage,” April 24, 2009. “http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/04/234“


This article was originally published at The Love and Fidelity Network Blog,http://www.loveandfidelity.org/blog/index.php/2011/01/18/words-matter-names-matter-by-kendel-christensen/
4 Comments
 
 
One of my same-sex 'marriage' articles was published athttp://www.marriagelibrary.org/2010/03/kendel-christensen-2nd-place-in-the-undergraduate-category/ It uses President Obama's own words to argue why he should support policies that support the natural family. I won a $500 prize in an essay contest for it!
Add Comment
 
 
     I believe very strongly in the traditional family: a father, a mother, and children form the basic unit of society.  I think our policies and laws should help this structure as much as possible.  Naturally, then, I am opposed to genderless or so-called "same-sex marriage."  I sometimes get into discussions with people who disagree.  Our conversations go different directions, but one thing has happened a few times now, and so I want to put some more thought into it than what I can usually articulate in the heat of the moment.   That something is the idea that genderless marriage tramples on the best interest of children.  "Won't someone please think of the children?!" they sarcastically mock (no, really, two different people have reacted with that identical phrase).  By the way they then proceed to talk, it seems we have two completely different ideas when we come to the idea of marriage and children.  
     The first idea that I think they could have is that what two people of the same sex getting married doesn't have anything to do with children--children aren't a part of the picture at all.  The second, and I am open to correction if I am wrong, but it feels like they have this idea in their head of a household of children headed by two parents who happen to be of the same gender versus a household of children headed by a mom and a dad.  There is research out there (mostly "advocacy research") which lends one to the conclusion, not wholly without merit, that the children who find themselves in the first situation do not spontaneously develop crippling and irreversible psychological problems.  Two parents of the same sex can provide food, shelter, love, etc. to children just as two people of different genders can.  Therefore, same-sex marriage does not harm children and people who think otherwise are freaking out because of homophobia or religious bias.  Hmmm, ok.  I'd be lying if I said I haven't known of people like that.  So if I admit that there exists stable, committed, and functional same-sex households I have to concede that same sex marriage wouldn't harm children?  Well, that is where I think we begin to misunderstand each other.  Yes, my position has to do with the parenting ability of same-sex couples on some level--but not soley in the scenario described--where children were already in the picture. [   Even in the situation I described, though, I would have to say first, that there is a sizable body of research that lend one to conclude that same-sex parenting does have psychological effects (though, to be fair, most of it is advocacy "research" as well)--but again, I don't think that all of such studies are wholly without merit.  Second, I would call into question the idea that same-sex couples do just as good as heterosexuals on average.  ]
     But let's begin to think past that parenting picture aside for a moment.  That was a picture that already had children in place--I imagine that people who think that same sex marriage can be good parents are subconsciously thinking that these children came from the most common source: previous marriages.  The parents broke up, and now things are better because the children have two parents again--no need to go ballistic because the parents happen to be of the same sex.  First problem: one of them isn't a parent in the technical sense.  By definition, two people of the same sex cannot both be "a genetic progenitor" of a child.  Again, I concede that non-genetic progenitors can and have prove themselves to parent children without any deep apparent harm to the child.  
    But let's take a few steps back and try to see the longer view—one in which children haven't come into the picture yet, but face a world which has changed the rules about the where, when and why of their existence.  Here is the picture in my mind.  The entire premise of same sex "marriage" is that we can't discriminate against couples who are of the same sex--am I correct?  We have to treat heterosexual unions and homosexual unions by exactly the same rules for both.  If this is true, many things in society will have to change--changes that will go way beyond even the most well-intentioned efforts to reach out to an oppressed or hated minority.  If the law decrees that there shall be no differing of treatment to a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple, it must then proceed to act on that premise.  The first thing that will have to change is the nature of parenting.  When traditional marriage is upheld, we assign parenthood by the obvious, natural principle: biology.  Every child has a mother and a father.  This is a biological reality.  Every child born to a married mother and father is legally attached to that mother and father by virtue of their marriage. If we redefine marriage as the union of any two persons, however, we come to a very glaring problem: biology is no longer an adequate rule.  It does not apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  It discriminates in favor of two people with a genetic link to the child which, again by definition, at least one person in a same-sex union will not be.  What, then, do we do to assign parenthood when a same-sex couple is involved?  No matter how you answer the question, you are not only saying that you know better than natural law, you are not only saying that gender is irrelevant or that men and women have completely fungible roles and abilities, you are not only designing the isolation of a child from having a relationship with at least one of their biological parents—and all the identity issues that come with it, you are not only  aiding the idea of breaking up parental roles into multiple, separate spheres (biological, legal, caregiving, etc...),  not only are you saying that it is more important to support private indulgences than public institutions, you are also saying that--by rule of law—that adults get what they want and children only get whatever we say they get.  Now, I don't know about you, but I am grateful to have a relationship with both of my biological parents.  I sleep better at night not having to wonder if a core part of who I am was mortgaged at my conception because two people wanted to be “like all the other marriages.”  Same-sex marriage turns children into commodities, when I say that no one has the right to do that.  They are people.  If the purpose of this nation is to promote the general welfare, why not start with those people who have no voice in court or the law—who literally only have the ability to cry if the people charged with their care decide that there are other, more important, more "enlightened" things than their welfare.  If we care about childrens' rights at all, we must admit that same-sex marriage is a two-sided stick. Who are we to say that children must be left with the short end?  I say, better not to pick it up.
13 Comments
 
 

Another of my essays was published on the Love and Fidelity Network website. This one focuses on the separation of church and state, infertility, and the comparison to separate but equal: http://www.loveandfidelity.org/blog/index.php/2009/11/23/why-i-defend-the-traditional-definition-of-marriage-part-ii-the-separation-of-church-and-state-separate-but-equal-and-the-infertility-question-by-kendel-christensen/ It is a direct follow-up to this article:http://www.loveandfidelity.org/blog/index.php/2009/10/28/why-i-defend-the-traditional-definition-of-marriage-by-kendel-christensen/

Which is very similar to this post: http://www.kendelc.com/1/post/2008/11/why-i-defend-the-traditional-definition-of-marriage.html
Sorry for all of the direct hyperlink text, the link feature on weebly is not working...
Add Comment
 
 

                                Why I Defend the Traditional Definition of Marriage
                                                         By Kendel Christensen

      Though I agree with opponents of Proposition 8 that “our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally,”1 I profoundly disagree that extending the word “marriage” to include gay couples is only about “equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.”2 The implications surrounding a redefinition of marriage go much deeper than merely “extending freedom” to everyone. It is for these deeper implications, and not from the hasty labels of “bigotry” or “intolerance,” that this issue—even after Proposition 8's passage—has become “a wind-whipped wildfire in California.”3 The reasons I support Proposition 8—or any movement that seeks to defend the institution of marriage as only an association between one man and one woman—are (1) the intrinsic one-sidedness to redefining marriage and (2) the far-reaching consequences of such a redefinition.

      Changing the definition of marriage is inherently lopsided. Not only would a minority of people force a majority to accept a weakened form of an institution pivotal to the stability and perpetuation of society, the proposed redefinition would continue to exclude other groups. I believe in the principle of “liberty and justice for all.” And I actually can sympathize with same-sex couples who, in their view, are just as connected to their partners as are married couples and who want that connection recognized. What I don't believe is that the only motive of advocates for same-sex marriage is to “guarantee the same freedoms and rights to everyone.”4 They are only advocating expanding the definition of marriage to include one more group.

      If advocates of same-sex marriage truly believed in equality and that “all you need is love” to make a marriage, then the logical extension from these values necessitates them accepting the marriages of polygamists, bigamists, or any group whose members claim that “they are in love.” They do not support such a position, but if we expand marriage once for one group of people, what is to keep people from further pushing the boundaries of what marriage means? If equality “under the law” is all same-sex couples wanted, they would be satisfied with the California Family Code's statute which reads that “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits . . . as . . . [married] spouses.”5

      What the issue of same-sex marriage really advocates is favored treatment—to force all of society to believe that there is no difference between gay relationship and straight ones. If gay couples want equal treatment, they should advocate reforming individual laws to include gays, not seek to change what marriage means for the rest of society. Their current course of action is equivalent to the civil rights movement trying to define the word “black” to be the same as “white.” Homosexual relationships simply cannot equal what the word “marriage” means. Again, a homosexual couple can be deeply connected emotionally—but marriage is more than just emotions. Two people of the same gender can't achieve the complete, consummate union that a heterosexual couple is endowed with phenotypically. To insist otherwise unfairly diminishes the role and value of the union between a man and a woman which union exclusively possesses the power to procreate.

      This forced favoritism will almost certainly generate future cases of inequality. If the law places same-sex marriage on the same footing as traditional marriage, it puts those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman at a rhetorical and legal disadvantage. It will create an environment of increasing intolerance for traditional values. Though I don't think this disadvantage will be as extreme as some of the media supporting Proposition 8 make it seem—that a failure to pass the measure will become a slippery slope that will inevitably indoctrinate our children to become gay—it will weaken the ability of parents to instill traditional values in the rising generation. I have great hope that the promises to opt children out of same-sex marriage education will be honored. But if the law positions same-sex marriage as identical to traditional marriage, the law then creates an environment that fosters reverse intolerance. If one teaches in school that same-sex unions are no different from heterosexual marriage, it will confuse children and imply that any child's parents who teach otherwise are bigots who suffer from irrational homophobia—thus undermining the parenting power of traditional marriages at a time when it should be strengthened. It will also silence those who wish to speak their consciences, for once “you have laws that make homosexual marriage a protected class, then the government has a compelling interest to normalize that and must declare anything in opposition to that [as] hate speech.”6

      I'd like to believe that my first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion will continue to be honored. However, I feel that enshrining gay marriage within the law will contribute, over time, to the “imposition of homosexual marriage”7 in more and more situations—especially against religion. Unfortunately, there is already ample evidence of this favoritism being played out against those who hold the conjugal definition of marriage. For example, a doctor in San Diego was pressured to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, despite recommending other doctors who could perform the procedure without stress to conscience.8 Religious clubs were told by universities that they would lose recognition if they excluded same-sex partners from membership.9 A Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to consider placing children with same-sex couples.10 Favoritism to gays has also attacked religions on a variety of other fronts including the loss of a church's tax-exempt status. As Princeton professor Robert P. George summarizes, “supporters of same-sex marriage would and are now, in the name of equality, demanding the use of governmental power to whip churches and others into line . . . once marriage is compromised or formally redefined, principles of non-discrimination law are quickly used as cudgels against religious communities and families who wish to uphold true marriage”11

      Perhaps more important are the transcendent, underlying principles of this debate. I find it thoroughly ironic that we can't build a park or a grocery store without a detailed “impact analysis” report, but we can change the meaning of marriage (which predates society) by simply convincing four of seven judges that a few people's rights are being infringed. Marriage is not just about rights, it is about the foundational fabric of our society. Opponents argue that what they do in private as consensual adults does not affect anyone else, but terming such behavior as “marriage” has consequences for society as a whole. Marriage has always been an association recognized publicly by communities. Among other things, it stands for the rearing and teaching of children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners signals a radical shift from a community-benefiting association to an agreement that benefits adults only.

      This development accentuates a deeper issue plaguing society: the tendency to emphasize rights over responsibilities. The rhetoric of those against Proposition 8 is filled with talk about “fundamental rights,” as if that were the only purpose of society. Nowhere does it take into account the equally-important responsibility each citizen has toward the larger society. It is this tendency that is the crux of my lamentations over this and similar movements.12 The world is becoming an increasingly harsh, violent, and selfish place, and I believe it is due in large part to people only caring about their rights, their benefits, and their well-being—not their individual responsibilities. That is what marriage is all about. It is not “just about love.” Marriage is a responsibility. It is a responsibility not only to the person you are marrying (an aspect for which same-sex unions can arguably qualify), but also to society as a whole (a requirement which, by definition, a same-sex couple cannot fully meet). Marriage, the family, and individual responsibility are being further eroded at the very moment they need to be strengthened to begin the type of healing society really needs.

     Redefining marriage is not an issue of tolerating a disadvantaged group, it is about protecting a foundational institution of society. Redefining marriage for an entire society at the compulsion of a minority will result in the institution being distorted in perception and value. Ultimately, it will change marriage from a relationship of commitment—especially to children—, to one of convenience primarily for adults. It is a convenience that America cannot afford to recognize without going against its own ideals.

1Official argument against Proposition 8 published in the California Ballot, http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm
Accessed October 31, 2008
2Ibid.
3LAURIE GOODSTEIN, “A Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Marriage Foes” Published: October 26, 2008 Nytimes.com, Accessed October 31, 2008
4Official argument against Proposition 8 published in the California Ballot, http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm
Accessed October 31, 2008
5California Family Code, Section 297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Accessed October 31, 2008
6Jim Garlow, in Laurie Goodstein, “A Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Marriage Foes” Published: October 26, 2008 Nytimes.com, Accessed October 31, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/27right.html?em
7Justice Atonin Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas (539 US 558)
8SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES, "Doctors Deny Lesbian Artificial Insemination"
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4941377&page=1
Accessed October 31, 2008
9 Marc D. Stern, “Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the Scholar’s Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006
10Associated Press, "Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays_1142014098/
Accessed October 31, 2008
11Robert P. George, “On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government”, BYU Forum Address, October 28, 2008.
12JESSE McKINLEY, “San Francisco’s Prostitutes Support a Proposition,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/01prostitute.html?th&emc=th
Published and Accessed October 31, 2008

why_i_defend_the_traditional_definition_of_marriage_by_kendel_christensen.pdf
File Size: 75 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
5 Comments