California Proposition 8 Fallout [Reader Post]

I’d like to explain how it is that a (mostly) liberal like me can be against same-sex “marriage.”

Right now, there is a raging protest going on over the passing of California’s Proposition 8, which was a California constitutional amendment to ban same sex “marriage.”

What is bothering me and what is motivating me to write this, is that I don’t think that anyone, on either side, is discussing what is really the most important point to this debate (to be described below). On one side, gay “marriage” proponents are trying to make this into a civil rights issue. Gays are being denied some sort of basic human right, in violation of all which is just and good. On the other side, there is too much of a religious connotation. The main people speaking up are religious people, who too often talk about the “sanctity” of marriage and otherwise discuss it in a religious context. It did not help that the major financial supporter of Prop 8 was the Mormon Church.

Here’s what I think are the most important issues. Marriage has endured as an institution for thousands of years for one main reason. The institution of marriage greatly improves the behavior of men, who would otherwise have a tendency to abandon women and children, who depend upon men for protection, shelter, and sustenance. This was always a societal responsibility. Fathers were responsible for the care of their daughters; the fathers paid a dowry to grooms as part of passing along the responsibility of caring for a woman from one man to another. The new husband accepted this dowry as part of a societal contract.

Fast forwarding to present day, most women no longer require such protection and care. Women are, in most cases, perfectly capable of caring for both themselves and their children. But it’s more of a struggle, and children from two parent households have clear cut advantages, as shown by considerable and compelling research. And, in two parent households, happiness and harmony are greatly facilitated by fidelity, and the institution of marriage continues to do a very good job of preventing most men from behaving too badly.

Supporters of same sex “marriage” are fond of tearing down the institution of traditional marriage with misleading statistics. The fact is that the average first marriage endures for more than two decades. A marriage which lasts 20 years or more is a success. It takes the married couple well into middle age and past most of the child rearing years. Most traditional marriages are, in this respect, a success.

Why does traditional marriage succeed? Because it is a very big deal, even in non-religious couples. Marriage has such a long and esteemed tradition. It is more than a social contract. It is more than a civil right. The very definition of marriage connotes “til death do us part.” It doesn’t matter that many marriages do not make it to this ultimate end. This is the goal of marriage, in the minds of most who enter into it. It is the biggest and most important commitment that most people ever make.

The average male in a “committed” gay relationship has 6 partners per year outside of the relationship. In the mind of many – if not most – heterosexual males, the concept of gay marriage is a joke. This is probably unfair and more than a little cruel, but it has it origins in the notorious promiscuity of gay relationships, even in supposedly “committed” gay relationships. It is the antithesis of marriage, which is fundamentally based in commitment. The average partner in a traditional marriage doesn’t have relationships outside the marriage. For the substantial minority who do have affairs outside of the marriage, it is on the order of one or two such affairs, over the course of decades or a lifetime. The point is that the institution of traditional marriage does a very good job, indeed, of keeping most men from behaving too badly, to the advantage of women and the well-being of children.

If same sex “marriage” becomes a matter of official government recognition, this will cheapen the concept of traditional marriage as being the most serious of life’s commitments. This won’t happen immediately, but, over the course of a generation, this will be the effect. Marriage will no longer be a “big deal,” it will be just another contract, to be dissolved more easily than it was formed. The average first marriage will no longer endure for more than two decades. More wives will be turned into single mothers. More children will be raised in one parent households.

The Netherlands experience is, to date, very controversial. Gay “marriage” has been in force of law only since 2002. I personally think that the statistics are strongly suggestive of a very adverse effect of the existence of same sex marriage on the degree to which traditional marriage is surviving as an institution in the Netherlands, but it will take more than a generation to have clear data on the ultimate, full effect. By then, it will have been too late. I think that the institution of traditional marriage will have been irreparably damaged, at least among secular people, again, to the disproportionate disadvantage of women and children.

Being a good liberal, I support everything else in the gay agenda. I’m for tenant rights and employment rights. I’m for ending all restrictions against gays serving in the military. I’m in favor of domestic partnerships, conveying on couples the same legal rights, advantages, and responsibilities which exist in the case of marriage. This is right and fair and it should take away every argument that non-government recognition of same sex “marriage” is in any way a violation of human rights, civil rights, or any other “rights.” Gays can call it whatever they wish. They can say that they are married. They can have ceremonies in church or any other institution which voluntarily agrees to host such ceremonies. They can go on honeymoons. They can privately use whatever descriptive terms or names they wish.

Just don’t have government refer to it officially as “marriage.” Marriage is a word which connotes a commitment of a man and a woman to be faithful to each other “til death do us part.” It is a human tradition going back millenia. Same sex “marriage” has briefly existed at various periods in the past. But only as a historical curiosity.

What is needed is simply a new name for what gays hope will become a new and enduring institution.

Men and women are different. They use different rest rooms. They have different rules in competitive athletics. They have different sexual functions. They often wear different types of clothes. They are separate but equal people, who already have separate but equal institutions.

Same sex couples who wish to make commitments should have their own separate but equal institution. Equal rights does not mean the blurring of important semantic distinctions. And that’s all the fuss is about. It has nothing at all to do with basic human rights or civil rights or equality under the law. It’s a war being fought over semantics. Trivial, on its face, but with important implications especially for women and children.