“Live and Let Live” Applied to Same-Sex Marriage

I just read about a politician who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, being in favor of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. His political philosophy, at least as it applies to fiscal issues, is “live and let live.” I previously blogged about what a contradiction his philosophy is when applied to the abortion issue, since an unborn baby cannot “live” unless the putative mother will “let live.” But what about applying his laissez faire attitude toward the marriage issue?

There are so many in apposite expressions swirling around the marriage issue that I hardly know where to start. But the “live and let live” is, perhaps, representative of the inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, of those promoting same-sex marriage.

First, with the help of mainstream media, the debate has been framed as being “anti-gay marriage” versus “pro-gay marriage.” In reality, most people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman are “pro-traditional marriage” or “pro-natural marriage,” and would be opposed to polygamy, incest, and any other relationship being called “marriage” that was not limited to one man and one woman who were not too closely related biologically.

Second, since marriage has for millennia been understood as one man and one woman, it is the supporters of same-sex “marriage” who are trying to re-define a term that already has an important historic and societal meaning. If enough people want to re-define what the color “red” is because it makes them feel better and more accepted, is that a reason to change the definition? Keep in mind who attacked whom. Heterosexuals did not agitate against homosexuals to deny them access to the term marriage. It was intrinsically understood, from common sense and the natural order, that marriage mean a man, a woman, and, most likely, children. An infertile couple does not void the heterosexual model that is procreative. It was the same-sex marriage advocates who tried to impose their view on an unwilling society, using the courts (in most cases) to do their dirty work, since they were unable to convince the electorate to embrace their view. In a couple of other cases it was a state legislature, unconcerned about the will of the people, who imposed a re-definition of marriage. As of this moment 32 states in the U.S. have been allowed to vote on what they wanted their social policy to be as it relates to defining marriage. All 32 have voted for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman.

 Marriage has historically been about children and parenting, but the modern approach to marriage uses the adult model of “companionship” and sexual expression. When kids are left out of the equation, the pro-gay marriage mantra of “marriage equality” sounds so fair, so American. The U.S. Constitution’s provision for “equal protection” is used to underscore the notion of “marriage equality” requiring same-sex couples to be recognized as married just as opposite-sex couples are recognized. But is there “equality?” Good heavens, no! It is not about “being able to marry the person you love.” I love my daughters and my close friends, but should not be able to “marry” them. Most would see that as stretching “love and marriage” too far. No one is forbidding a person from loving whomever they choose. It is merely that there is no historical, natural or Constitutional “right” to call a loving relationship “marriage” unless it is between one man and one woman.

Also, for the Constitutional doctrine of “equal protection” to attach, the parties must be “similarly circumstanced.” I submit that a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple are not biologically nor procreatively equal. When same-sex couples figure out how to procreate within their union, then we can re-visit the issue.

Finally, after millennia of marriage being the bedrock institution of families and civilization, what possible justification can activist judges find for striking the will of the people when the people vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman? In the Perry case in California (the attempt by pro-same sex marriage activists to overturn Proposition 8 in which the voters amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman), a federal judge determined that “animus” (i.e., “hatred”) toward homosexuals is the only explanation for excluding them from marriage. Two judges on a three-judge panel concurred, and now that case will likely make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is likely news to most of you that the reason you support traditional, natural marriage has nothing to do with its procreative potential, its traditional place as a stabilizing factor in society, nor its place in the religious teachings of Christians and Jews. You merely want to keep marriage between heterosexuals because you hate gays. Glad to finally be disabused of the notion that marriage was about kids. Now, with the wisdom of unelected federal judges, we now know that the vast majority of America is made up of homophobic bigots! What a wholesale return we get from our federal bench from such a meager investment of facts.

If a person truly wants to “live and let live,” then love whom you choose, but don’t expect society to re-define traditionally-understood terms to suit your purposes. To now disclose my “religious bias,” I would like to quote the One who claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only way to God, and One with the Father: “Have you not read that He who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and for this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh….” Matthew 19:4-5.