How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[Kay Soze]

How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

By Alan Charles Raul

WASHINGTON - The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision. The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.

This observation is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision. The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions of the US Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas and an older anti-antiabortion ruling, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) to support the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate (a) moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the document itself - that is, that individual desires must necessarily trump community interests whenever important issues are at stake.

These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty. In a republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees for the United States, elected officials are meant to set social policy for the country. They do so by embodying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids the establishment of religion, the other major social vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality, legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time, and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay rights, pornography, and the like.

Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many zoning laws, and a great deal of environmental protection - especially wilderness conservation - are based on moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic preferences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a majority of society wants its elected representatives to preserve, protect, and promote these values independent of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me lately" kind of analysis. Indeed, some of these choices can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: For example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive individuals of their ability to use their property and live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Frequently, the socially constrained individuals will sue the state, claiming that such legal restrictions "take" property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and capricious governmental action. And while such plaintiffs sometimes do - and should - prevail in advancing their individual interests over those of the broader community, no one contends that the government does not have the legitimate power to promote the general welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to the specific constitutional rights of individuals and due regard for the protection of discrete and insular minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).

Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of collective moral preferences. Favoring home ownership over renting has, to be sure, certain utilitarian justifications. But the fact is that we collectively believe that the country benefits from the moral strength growing out of families owning and investing in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in the social desire to support good deeds. Our society, moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is: We have gone to war on more than one occasion because it was the morally correct thing to do.

So courts that deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they run directly counter to actual legislative practice in innumerable important areas of society. We must recognize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral code for that of the people. This damage is not merely inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for when judges erode the power of the people's representatives to set society's moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large.

It is thus no wonder that many feel our culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitutions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed, to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government." It cannot be stated better than George Washington did in his first inaugural address: "The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."

• Alan Charles Raul is a lawyer in Washington. This commentary originally appeared in The Washington Post. ©2003 The Washington Post.

[weegee]

When society needed much physical labor (especially to work land) and had higher mortality rates, a prolific family could easily been made with multiple wives.

Times have changed and such marriages are not the norm. Child labor and slave labor are frowned upon in the Western world now. There are nations that still permit polygamy. You will also find the practice of mistresses and even the ownership of sexual slaves in them. Those wives are for childbearing.

[weegee]

The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start.

This was my point about this push (and why it is bad for society) above.

The non-traditional marriage movement seeks to remove any "approval" of marriages. Forget government "approval", I am talking "societal approval". This is a part of the culture war's attack on the family.

As I got you to admit, you still think that the government is permitted to restrict blood relations from marrying. Either they can restrict a marriage between adults or they can't.

We can argue over "who's" marriages can be outlawed but you have to settle whether the government has any say.

You believed that the genetic crapshoot of such a mating was too great a risk and that it intruded on your rights (somehow, what as a taxpayer???).

[weegee]

They can have a ceremony and call it marriage.

Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements?

What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"? Could they face discrimination lawsuits?

What about the inheritance issue? The courts are involved in that.

Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony? Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?

You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).

Sure are a lot of legal reasons for the government to be involved in determining what is a marriage and what is not.

[weegee]

But minors under the of "age of consent" DO consent to have sex and there is no prosecution for it.

You say that they cannot legally consent but the law in today's permissive society does permit a certain level of sexual activity (bounded only by the age of the partner although it is not set in stone). Adults (over 18) are permitted to have sex with "consenting" minors even below a legal "age of consent" of 16.

Either minors can have sex legally or they can't. Is sex with an 18 year old "better" for that 14 year old better for her/him than sex with a 21 year old?

[NutCrackerBoy]

They can have a ceremony and call it marriage. -NutCrackerBoy

I meant to show that the government is not restricting their private freedom. Such a declaration would have no legal bearing whatsoever.

Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements [same-sex couple simply calling itself "married"]?

No.

What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"?

Yes.

Could they face discrimination lawsuits?

No.

What about the inheritance issue?The courts are involved in that.

Private individuals are free to specify inheritance.

Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony?

Yes.

Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?

I don't see why there would be.

You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).

There are deficiencies in what social contracts the law permits private individuals to enter into. These should be addressed, but they are not unique to gay couples: in almost every case the same might apply to any configuration of persons that choose to form a family-type arrangement.

[John O]

Discrimination based on sexuality is immoral.

No one's discriminating based on sexuality. The law discriminates against beahaviors that are proven harmful to society. Such things as murder, theft, molestation, homosexual behavior etc are harmfult o society and have no place in a civilized nation.

Everyone in the USA has equal rights already.

[John O]

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

So if you love your goat you should be allowed to marry it? What about if you love your two-year old?

Now you will probably respond that neither of those examples are valid because they are not mentally capable of entering into a marriage contract.

OK. We'll try another one. What about your severely mentally disabled friend? Or perhaps the guy who lives in the group home down the street who thinks he's Napolean. What? They aren't capable either? What about the person who struggles with severe depression or paranoia? Still not capable?

Then how can someone with a serious mental illness (Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD)) be capable of entering a marriage contract either?

All people are heterosexual. We all have heterosexual physiology. Any behavior that 'abuses' that physiology is disordered. Only the mentally ill practice homosexual behavior.

So why sentence the mentally ill to a lifetime (or in the case of 'gay' males, 18 months) married to someone who they only think they love because they are mentally ill. Wouldn't it be better to get them cured and have them marry someone more fitting?

[Pietro]

"Democrats and liberal activist judges are the only ones mandating a "moral code" on the rest of the population"

Make that rather an amoral code and I dare say that many libertarians here at FR are right in step w/ them.

[John O]

I can walk out of my front door and knock on the doors of four heterosexual married couples who either can't or won't have children...I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Wonderful point to bring up. Leads directly into the purpose of government regulation of the contract known as marriage.

Marriage as a social construct exists to provide for and protect the future of the society it exists within. That is, the society establishes an ideal environment for the raising of the next generation of citizens. It has been proven that a nuclear family of one man married to one woman is the best environment for producing and raising children. (I'm assuming you'll agree with this last point.) So society subsidizes and encourages marriages that will have the potential to result in children.

Now what about the couple that has no children or plans to have no children? My wife and I were married 14 years before we had our first child. We decided to have children somewhat later than most. I know of several other couples who married with the intent to never have kids (all of which have kids now by the way). The point is that the environment that these couples create still falls into the category of most favorable for children. Even if they have none of their own, they may adopt later. (again I know of several who have done this)

Couples who can't have children can always adopt. And in some cases (I know of a few) medical advances let them have children later.

A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children. In fact a 'homosexual' couple almost guarantees that the child will be molested at some point (either by one of the 'parents' or by one of their friends). A child should never be left in the care of a 'homosexual'

[John O]

The right of blood relations to marry end when the rights of the unrealized issue of their union come into play.

Again, society protecting the future.

[John O]

I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Biblical precedent does support one man married to several women in the OT. However no precedent exists for one woman to marry several men. In the NT this is limited back to one man to one woman.

Interesting that you bring biblical approval into this. The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT). And that homosexual behavior is never moral (that is, those who practice it will not enter the kingdom of heaven) and that they who practice it will reap the recompence of their error.

[John O]

Limiting marriage to the concept of procreation went out a long, long time ago. Few argue that one anymore.

Disagree strongly. Procreation is the only reason that any marriage law exists. They are all to subsidize the next generation. Beyond that society has no part in marriage.

[John O]

no matter how much fact you present, the homosexual sympatizers just won't listen to it. SAD in a way.

[John O]

You post a lot of stuff about pedophilia, but I've never seen you post that the cops and social workers don't know the real rates because so much is believed to be within families and goes unreported.

Excellent info if provable, breakem. I've seen scripter's police reports, CDC statistics and other published reports on pedophillia rates so let's see your published data to support this.

[John O]

You don't know the difference between recognizing rights and "encouraging" something. Weak!

And what rights for those who practice homosexual behavior are we supposed to recognize that they don't already have? They have the exact same right to marry that I do. The behvaior needs to be cured not encouraged

You know the percentage of the population that is homosexual and you know the % of pedophilia committted by homosexuals. Since most people including the police and social workers don't know these stats, you could make a lot of money selling your information.

Again, proof of this is where?

[John O]

You post information on pedophilia which is incorrect.

Proof?

(Or is this just a case of say a lie often enough and people will believe it?)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"However no precedent exists for one woman to marry several men. In the NT this is limited back to one man to one woman."

So it's OK for Jews to engage in polygamy?

"The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT)."

In other words, when it comes to civil rights, for instance the right not to be killed because of something the Bible says, the law supports NOT following Biblical dogma.

So then, what's the objection to same sex marriages, other than "we've never done this before".

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, it's the law protecting the specific rights of an individual.

Laws apply to individuals, not society.

[John O]

Our neighbors, two women, married by their minister have a child.

I'm sorry, breakem, but this statement is in error. One of your neighbors has a child with a man who donated sperm. It is physically impossible for two woman to have a child. (grade school biology here. Man + woman = child.)

The second woman is an unrelated person living in the same house. The family that exists is the mother and her child.

[John O]

Just wanted to counter the point that a homosexual marraige could not "produce" a child.

It can't. Biology just won't be overruled that easily. We all have heterosexual physiology no matter what perversions we choose to practice.