Why we defend traditional marriage
I want to be very clear about the motive behind this post. It is not an attack on homosexuals, but rather a defense of an institution that has been around for a long time. For the past several years, as the homosexual movement has gained momentum in our country, there has been a steady barrage on what conservative Christians would consider to be a traditional marriage (ie. between one man and one woman). When someone mentions that they are against giving homosexuals the right to marry each other (a same-sex marriage), one of the first assumptions is that this person is discriminating against homosexuals. I pointed this out in another article in which I tried to answer the question, Is gay the new black?
The fact that someone chooses to be homosexual is none of my business, unless they try to make me or anyone else believe that homosexual behavior is normal. If you have read some of my other articles, then you will know that I am against homosexuality. I believe it is wrong and I certainly do not believe that it is normal, but I don’t go out of my way to address the subject, unless I feel it is warranted. I also feel very strongly that homosexuals should not be mistreated, as some have certainly been. The most glaring example of mistreatment has to be that of young Matthew Shepard. What happened to him was a travesty and should in no way be condoned by anyone, no matter how much one may disagree with homosexuality.
As consenting adults, it doesn’t matter if I like your behavior, as long as it does not encroach upon my freedom to disagree and to voice that disagreement in a peaceable manner. Where I begin to have a major problem with homosexuality is when they do their best to cram their views down my throat and insist they have a right to change the definition of marriage to match their own behavior.
That is exactly what happened last year when eHarmony was forced to capitulate to the homosexual movement and begin providing services to homosexuals, even though they do not specialize in homosexuals and despite the fact that there are numerous homosexual dating services online. This was a clear attempt to normalize homosexual behavior by gaining access to a site that caters exclusively to heterosexuals.
Does disagreement with homosexuality constitute discrimination? Homosexuals claim they want the same benefits that a man and a woman receive when they enter into a traditional marriage. While there are some homosexual couples that want the right to marry and live a quite life, there are many homosexual activists that want something else entirely. They want to normalize homosexual relationships and behavior. Civil Unions give homosexual couples access to most of the benefits of marriage and existing laws could be amended to give them access to the others.
In trying to be fair with this article, there is another attack on traditional marriage that also bears mentioning: Divorce. My Mom and Dad have been married for 65 years. My wife and I are at 19 years and we hope to make it to 65 or better. As good as that may sound, a lot of marriages end in divorce. Chief among the reasons seems to be financial troubles, but infidelity ranks very close to the top of the list. As much as I am against same-sex marriage, some of the argument for traditional marriage is lost when traditional marriages are ending at a very alarming rate.
You may ask yourself, why are a lot of marriages ending in divorce. The answer is actually pretty simple. Consider what sort of television shows are coming out of Hollywood. Most of them have sex woven into the story line somewhere and most of the time, it is not between a married couple. I suppose that wouldn’t be exciting enough, so they write in an extramarital affair. Is it any surprise that it has an effect on the way our society acts, given the amount of television that any given family watches in any given week?
I personally know a couple who nearly lost their marriage years ago because of daytime soap operas. The woman was staying at home while the husband was working on his job and she became obsessed with them and very unsatisfied with her own life. Those are her words, not mine. She began to feel that her own life didn’t measure up to what she was seeing on television and it almost cost them their marriage.
I encountered a situation at work just last week that I nipped in the bud. There was a woman who was clearly flirting with me, trying to get her bill lowered. After a few minutes of putting up with her behavior, I politely informed her that she could stop flirting, that it wasn’t doing her any good. Some may wonder why I am so hard against even a small amount of flirting, but years ago I watched a young woman break up a family by intentionally flirting with one of our co-workers. This took place even though she was fully aware that he was married. I don’t place all the blame on her because he was clearly at fault, but if one of them had taken a step back and said no, then maybe a child wouldn’t have grown up in a divorced home.
Some legal scholars have even went so far as to suggest that marriage be abolished altogether and civil union be required for legal purposes, but I reject that notion outright. Traditional marriage has been one of the fundamentals of our country for a long time and while some may very well be moving away from it as part of our foundation, it doesn’t make it any less true. Our country has been strong for a long time and part of the reason for that strength has been the strength of our families. That strength is under attack from all directions.
If Hollywood has it’s way, traditional marriage will be portrayed straight out of our society. How do we expect our children to want a traditional marriage if all they see around them is an affair that bears no resemblance to a real marriage? If the homosexual community succeeds in redefining traditional marriage in an attempt to make themselves appear as normal as possible, a lot of that strength will be lost and once it is gone, it may very well never be recovered.
I wholeheartedly agree. I am not one to impose or “force” my will or my ways upon others, especially if it will change the lives of people around me for the worse. I expect homosexuals to treat me with the same respect. My fellow Christians and I do not hate anyone, including homosexuals. The opposite is true… we love them. But legalizing gay marriage in any state gives public schools the idea that it’s okay to add the gay agenda to the already long list of politically charged, left-leaning curriculum. It would also invite homosexuals to do what they have already been doing to religious leaders: forcing them to marry homosexuals or face lawsuits that would wreck their ministries, and these are the ones that keep our economy afloat, fighting every evil that enslaves the poor and afflicted.
The right to practice religion without interference from the government is our constitutional right. But the effects of gay marriage threaten and infringe upon that right. In some states, it has already happened because of judges who leave the original intention of our laws out of the decision making process, which is contrary to what is taught in law school.
Contrary to what homosexual activists will say, homosexual people already have all of the same rights as heterosexual people have. Granting homosexuals the right to marry would impose the homosexual agenda on people who overwhelmingly support defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and do not wish for their children to be taught sexuality, let alone homosexuality, in the classroom. That should be left up to the parents. Read about the statistics in Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality or go to Gay Rights: A Summary of the Dabate from a Christian Perspective.
An interesting post Larry. There are a number of things I’d comment upon including the inclusion of divorce in the dicussion; however, I want to focus on one important thing I think you’ve missed — the issue of homosexual marriage is being addressed in this country in EXACTLY the way it should be. No activist judges are handing down decisions mandating gay marriage. The Supreme Court has not issued a ruling that oversteps the necessary imits of a decision as it did in Roe v Wade. The Congress is not imposing national law on an issue that is better managed at the state level like a certain Senator from Nevada is trying to do to Washington DC on local gun control matters. But rather, state by state, the issue os being debated and decisions made. California and Iowa are involved in spirited internal debate because of decisions on opposite sides of the issue. This is American democracy at its very finest and whether you agree or disagree with the outcomes we must applaud the process.
That will depend on the case and on the Court. Most cases are narrow and the Court makes decisions that are specific to the case without the broad applications that give certain cases “landmark” status. Roe v Wade should have been a narrow case with a narrow decision but the Court took it upon itself to issue a broad decision. This Court could have issued a very broad decision in the DC gun case but they opted to issue a relatively narrow ruling that said the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own a gun but agreed states may at their discretion establish reasonable measures to control and license owners. They could have gone much broader than they did but chose not to. If that is an indication of the Roberts Court view on federalism then I don’t think a “landmark” decision approving gay marriage is in the cards. If the Court changes and bears a more liberal bent then that could change; but I don’t see it.
Some of that may very well change, depending on who President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court, if he has the opportunity to do so.
In your first comment, you acted a bit surprised that I included divorce in the discussion. I am just curious as to why that surprised you.
Mike,
The states may very well be handling the issue, at least for the time being, but I wonder what will happen when one side or the other of this issue appeals all the way to the Supreme Court?
What’s important isn’t who Obama would nominate (they will be liberal) but who they would replace. As I’ve said before, the next 3 most likely vacancies are all liberal justices: Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter. Barring unforeseen circumstances it is highly unlikely any of the 5 conservative justices will leave the Court during an Obama adminstration even if it lasts 8 years. Therefore no change in the conservative bent of the Court is expected for many many years to come.
Re your inclusion of divorce I simply count it as irrelevant to the discussion. I understand the point you’re making is that traditional marriage is under attack by the prospect of legalizing gay marriage but divorce is a privacy matter, a well-established right, and of concern to nobody outside the immediate family involved. I don’t imagine you’re suggesting divorce be made illegal or that Hollywood movies be censored for content that might condone immoral sexual behavior (the rating system does that to come extent). I agree that the high incidence of divorce in this country is regrettable; but saying so doesn’t change anything.
My purpose of including divorce and the section about Hollywood in the article was to show that traditional marriage is under attack from a number of different angles, including the homosexual movement to legalize same-sex marriage. It is not irrelevant to the discussion, in my opinion. I realize it is legal and a private matter, but it is still a problem and saying so was my way of pointing that out.
Larry,
Although I disagree with you on gay marriage, I have always wondered why it is that people spend so much time on an issue that affects a slim minority of our population (homosexuals) and gloss over divorce. Like you, I’m long married (23 years). Unlike you, I consider the heterosexual trampling of the institution of marriage a travesty and a much bigger threat to the traditional family than a slim minority ever could.
Most disturbingly, it is not just non-believers that trash the meaning of marriage. The Barna Group (George Barna, one of the principles of The Good News Holdings Group) has been polling regarding this for years. From an older study (1996):
“Pollster George Barna discovered that born-again Christians actually have a higher rate of divorce (27 percent) than nonbelievers (23 percent). Fundamentalists top them all (30 percent). And 87 percent divorced after accepting Christ, presumably aware of the biblical teaching on divorce” Newer info on his site, I’m sure but I’m going fast. I don’t in any way suggest that Chrisitans are the only ones divorcing, its just important to realize that this group is a big part of the problem.
Thank you for including divorce, as I think it’s one of the reasons why many reject out-of-hand the “defense of marriage” argument against allowing gays to marry. Honestly- if marital activists are interested in “saving” marriage, shouldn’t they first deal with the real culprits that are killing it-namely heterosexuals who have all the rights and privleges yet treat them cavalierly? What other arguments do you buy from a big, dark pot that calls the kettle black?
Mike,
States are dealing more and more with the issue of gay marriage (legal in a couple of states) and gay divorce. Texas courts now struggle with the legalities of granting a divorce to a couple who’s marriage isn’t even legal in their state. I think the state-by-state approach isn’t on solid ground because of this type of situation. I think this necessarily will need to be settled at the Federal level, no matter what individual states decide.
Larry,
One last thing- I brought up Good News Holding because it was a Hollywood organization packed with Hollywood heavyweights (successful producers and businessmen) who were attempting to bring values into major entertainment. It appears that Good News Holdings is no more, which is unfortunate. I had some contact with Chiz Chisolm (co-founder of the E! network) when they were rolling this out and they all had such high hopes. Too bad…
Divorce and re-defining marriage are completely separate issues, with completely separate reasons. I am a divorcee that believes in marriage for life. I cannot control what my partner does, but I can remove my children from him if he is dangerous. This was my case. I am glad for the opportunity to divorce. And, in fact, the Bible does not teach against it. Divorce was included in the law of Moses as an acceptable alternative, and in some cases, commanded. Jesus spoke against infidelity with the eyes to show how serious the offense is, not to tell people that it was not okay to divorce. People have taken scriptures out of context in order to condemn people for divorcing. Divorce does tear families apart, but sometimes, it is for the better, as it was in my case. My husband raped my daughter. I had no choice in the matter, but if I had, it wouldn’t have happened. My husband is in jail now because of what he did. I pray he never gets out, as I consider him to be a dangerous man. But my parents were divorced and remained friends. They still attend every holiday family occasion together with us, and it is an enjoyable experience, because both of my parents are generally mature enough to handle being around each other and accept that it just didn’t work out. I’m not saying that this should be the case, or even that God meant for divorce to happen for no reason at all. I still don’t know why my parents divorced in the first place, other than that my mother was a feminist that hated men. Don’t worry, that’s not so for me. I understand that men are different than women, and I respect those differences.
What is ironic is that the very people who tell Christians and other religious people that they are focusing on the wrong group of marriage-wreckers, those in favor of homosexual marriage, etc., are the ones with the poorest commitment rate of all. The statistics show that the majority of homosexuals have multiple partners and most of them stay together, at best, for no longer than two years. For homosexuals who wish to adopt children, this is not good for those children, especially when you consider that those children who are adopted have already been through the ringer over losing their natural parents, whether to drugs, death, poverty, abuse, or other terrible circumstances. The book, Getting it Straight, which I recommended with the full title showing in my first post, is one of many excellent resources for statistics about the homosexual lifestyle. To find out just how dangerous the homosexual rights agenda already has been to the family due to court decisions about gay marriage, view all of the videos and read the articles published on this sight: Gay Rights: A Summary of the Debate From a Christian Perspective.
WhitU4ever’s last blog post..What Happened to Jane Roe?
Laurie you wrote: “I consider the heterosexual trampling of the institution of marriage a travesty and a much bigger threat to the traditional family than a slim minority ever could.” That’s similar to what Larry was saying about divorce in his post. So my question is, what do you suggest be done? Saying divorce threatens traditional marriage is a bit like saying that chewing gum is bad for your teeth. Well, of course it is; and so we strongly discourage the chewing of gum and proper burshing. But I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The gay marriage issue has national consequences. Divorce is just a fact of life that everyone, and especially those who go through it, wish never has to happen. It’s not always a bad thing — just a sad thing.
Oh, and I left out mentioning the confusion that the homosexual lifestyle causes for the homosexual’s existing family. Consider how the parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts and cousins feel when the homosexual family member brings a different partner home for each family gathering. Consider the extra explaining that heterosexual relatives have to do for Uncle Joe or Aunt Jane, who broke up last week with someone they also called an uncle or aunt. Perhaps the children were fond of the “divorced” homosexual partner that is no longer there and now they are sad that they will never see this person again. How many more divorce-like experiences must these children experience aside from their own? And all because Uncle Joe and Aunt Jane can’t seem to keep the same partner for longer than a year? Don’t you think these children will decide that it is best not to get too close to the next one brought home, lest a broken heart? Is it healthy for them to disassociate like that? The statistics say no. Or think of this… How many homosexual families find themselves estranged from their homosexual relatives because of these very issues? That is not a workable solution either, because it is just another type of family rift. It’s inevitable that everyone involved in these kinds of situations is effected in some way. Sure, it’s possible for gay couples to split up and be friends, like my parents did. But how it effects the loved ones is not healthy. Perhaps gay couples should work on their own rate of commitment to one another before criticizing heterosexual commitment rates.
WhitU4ever’s last blog post..What Happened to Jane Roe?
Mike,
I think the reason that Larry and I bring in divorce when talking about the defense of marriage is exactly because of your statement that it is “just a fact of life”. That most people charged with this sacred privilege think this is exactly why it’s germaine to any conversation about the defense of marriage.
I realize that gay marriage has national consequences, but only for the very slim majority of those who wish to enter into the institution. Not so for the vast majority of divorces in this country that have absolutely no cause except a change of heart. (WhitUever’s situation is as abominable as it is rare, as is yours. Int the greatest percentages of divorces, both halves of the couple are a party to it. And the vast numbers of children who are damaged by this are not only of national consequence but of great concern as well.
Perhaps it would have been better for Larry to raise these two issues seperately, but I think his correlation is spot on. Both groups can be seen as a potential threat to the traditional family; only one is actually damaging it. We respectfully disagree, now let’s step off and let others have the floor before we coopt the forum and get in trouble.
WhitUEver, your situation is heartbreaking, and I am certainly glad that you had the legal options to improve it, if not make it better. But most divorces are of the vague “irreconcilable differences”, wouldn’t you agree?
That doesn’t bode well for anybody.
And while I understand the feeling that gay marriage would redefine marriage (and agree with it), I think the meaning of marriage was “redefined” along time ago when “death do us part” became “until I get bored…or find someone else…or make enough money to afford it…or get my feelings hurt…or can’t communicate” or any of the other reasons the majority of divorces fall under. Redefine marriage? When it became a pervasive, accepted “fact of life” in the US, divorce already did that in a civil and a religious context.
WhitU4Ever-
Your last post came in as I was writing, but it bears a response.
It is obvious that you will never accept homosexuals, which is fine. But each situation you speak of from multiple sexual partners to the awkward family situations when “committed” partners are introduced and then never appear again is also a rampant problem in heterosexual life. There are “sluts” and serial monogamists in both camps, not just in the homosexual community. You say that homsexuals don’t stay together for more than 2 years regularly, but this is true with a lot of heterosexuals, as well. Those are not good reasons to exclude the group from marriage, ottherwise you’d have to exclude a lot of men and women who have had poor committment role models their entire lives and continue to model the learned behavior into adulthood.
I have grieved many years over the the serious divorce problem in the heterosexual society. This is no excuse for opening marriage/divorce to homosexuals. It should be obvious to anyone who has a good knowledge of Scripture, some acquaintance with the decline of civilizations and just plain commom sense that the homosexual movement is especially antagonistic to Christianity, and destructive to family and the subsistence of an ordered society.
Raymond,
I would have to agree with you and some of the other comments. Divorce is a very serious problem in our society, mainly because couples seem to lack the commitment to stay together. There are instances, such as the one mentioned by WhitU4Ever that are really untenable and I don’t blame her one bit for divorcing her husband. I don’t believe God requires anyone to stay in such a terrible situation.
As you said, the problem of divorce among heterosexuals should not be considered an opening or an excuse to allow same-sex marriage. If they desire to take part in an unnatural relationship, that is their business, but they should not encroach upon marriage. There is no reason for them to be allowed to marry. If they want the same legal rights as married couples, then so be it. Give them Civil Unions, but they should not attempt to change the definition of a sacred institution that has stood for thousands of years.
Hi Larry, As you know, I strongly disagree with you aon the topic of gay marriage. Even though I am not gay I strongly identify with those who are when it comes to this important civil rights issue. For starters, their are hundreds of legal benefits that are only afforded “married” couples. So, those who enter into civil unions are prevented from filing joint tax returns, probating the estates of their partners, determining life-and-death issues when serious illness is added to the equation, and many more legal realities that are only granted to married couples.
Additionally, I am not all that interested in tradition. The “traditional” definition of marriage has existed only because minority groups were shut out of the political process for years. One of the great parts of our society is that, over time, we have the freedom to evolve. In my opinion, this should allow us to reach a place where gay couples can marry and receive all of the benefits that heterosexual couples receive. Having said that, I would never support the state’s trying to get in the way of the constitutionally-protected rights of religious organizations. If a religious organization does not want to marry gay couples–that would be fine with me. But the state, because we have a well-defined separation of church and state, should not allow the views of Christians–even if they are the majority–to keep people who love each other from being able to have a government-sanctioned relationship with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that.
On the issue of divorce–I completely agree with you. One of the things, though, that I find ironic is that the Southern states have the highest divorce rates in the nation. Interestingly, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the first two states to sanction gay marriages, have the lowest divorce rates in the nation. I’m not suggesting that the issues are related, but it’s interesting that those who talk the most about values are the ones who most often fail to live up to them.
The loss of whole families in America is sad, but continuing policies of discrimination is not the answer. Instead, we should be educating people about what makes relationships work and giving them the freedoms needed to figure out what kind of partner they want to spend the rest of their life with. We are suffering from the rigid societal expectations of the past that simply don’t address the society we now live in.
Jonathan Simeone’s last blog post..Obama Won’t Prosecute for Torture: America has a Legal Double Standard
Jonathan,
I agree with you on some of your points, but the part where I have a major disagreement is that point where you classify marriage as a civil right. The right for homosexuals to marry is not a civil right, but an attempt by them to change the definition of marriage and to make themselves appear to be as normal as they can. The fact remains that their sexual lifestyle is not normal and it never will be. It is not discrimination to prevent them from marrying.
As I said in the article, the existing laws should be amended to allow them to have the same legal rights as married couples, using Civil Unions. The reason I hold this belief is because I do not believe this issue is a legal issue, but rather an issue that deals with the core values we should hold. Same-sex marriage is not one of those values.
Larry,
I appreciate that you have been very consistent in your views on this subject, and perhaps you’re right that the next logical step would be amending civil union laws and making sure they are available in all 50 states.
Judging from the comments and reactions of many on this and other boards and in general, many who oppose gay marriage oppose gay people in general. I don’t think the majority of the opposition would be any more comfortable with same sex unions being the accepted law of the land than gay marriage, given that gay people would be treated just like any one else. Do you think most who oppose gay marriage would back off and let civil unions for same sex couples sail through, either on a Federal level or a state-by-state leve? I think the protestation would be exactly the same from most.
Laurie,
I honestly do believe the people who are protesting against same-sex marriage would back off the protests if a compromise was worked out that gave same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples and left marriage alone. For me and a lot of other people, it is not so much about the legal rights is about the institution of marriage itself.
Larry, My problem with your reasoning is that I do not agree when people try and classify something as “normal.” I mean who gets to say what is normal? Just because the majority agrees something is right does that make it normal? In Germany during the 40s it was considered normal to throw living human beings into ovens. Did that make that conduct normal? And if it was normal since a majority of the society was supporting the practice did that make the behavior more acceptable?
In the American South, before the early 70s, it was considered normal to openly discriminate and in some circles abuse people simply because of their race. Since a majority of Southerners supported race-based discrimination did that make it normal and thus more acceptable?
Before the 80s it was considered normal to take blind people, like me, and segregate us into a lifetime of institutional existence. A majority of people simply did not think we were capable of anything else. So, segregating us was the norm.
Over the last few decades the world has decided that burning people alive, discriminating based on race, and locking away people with disabilities are bad ideas. Now, the norm is to try not to discriminate based on race and people with disabilities are becoming more-and-more included in American society.
The truth is that, over time, what societies once considered normal changes. That’s the mark of an ever-growing, more inclusive society. That’s one of the things that make America so grate. America, more than most places, has the ability to change its previously held norms and incorporate those who have been arbitrarily excluded in other societies.
Jonathan Simeone’s last blog post..Obama Won’t Prosecute for Torture: America has a Legal Double Standard
Jonathan,
I do not believe we can compare homosexual desires and behavior to blind people such as yourself. The way many of our citizens with disabilities have been treated is not good, that is to be sure. However, homosexuals are people who have made a choice to live that lifestyle. It is not a valid comparison to compare them with “normal” behavior in Nazi Germany.
Larry,
One more quesiton building on Jonathan’s question. While I do not ask for anyone to agree that same sex coupling is “normal” based on religious and personal feelings, I do question the reasoning of “majority rules” when it comes to granting rights.
Do you think it’s a good idea to legislate laws, especially those that pose Consitutional issues, from a majority feeling?
It’s crazy to see all of the people that still make comments about how sexual orientation is a choice. A completely baseless argument with no root in logic or science. But I guess I can understand why they would believe such a thing – acknowledging the consensus view that it is an innate biological/physiological trait would require people to question why they are discriminating against people, and question their interpretations of the Bible. Those are scary things to do for people so stuck in their ways.
Sexual orientation is a choice. It is a behavior that homosexuals choose to engage in and one they could choose to stop, if they wanted. Just because a lot of people have came together and decided that homosexual behavior is an innate biological trait doesn’t make it so. Simply put, homosexual behavior is not normal, no matter which way you look at it.