Why do governments involve themselves in the regulation and promotion of marriage? Are they interested in promoting romantic love? Are they interested in personal happiness and fulfillment? While romance, personal happiness, and fulfillment may be part of marriage, these are not the reasons government involves itself in the marriage business. They regulate and promote marriage because they have a vested interest in the production and socialization of children. Children are needed for the perpetuation of society, and those children need to be properly socialized so they can be productive members of society. Heterosexual couples, and heterosexual couples alone are capable of delivering on these government interests, and thus their relationship has been privileged, promoted, and regulated by the government.
Apart from children there is no reason for the government to sanction or regulate any private relationship in any official capacity, including same-sex relationships. Seeing that same-sex relationships have nothing to do with the purpose for which civil marriage is enacted; therefore, same-sex relationships are not entitled to the benefits of marriage. They may enjoy the same love and commitment heterosexual couples enjoy, but they are not equally situated to heterosexual couples because they cannot produce children. Their relationships do not serve the same function in, and for society, and thus there is no need to officially recognize their relationships anymore than there is a need for the government to officially recognize friendships. As important as we might deem these relationships to be, they do not need, nor do they deserve the same sort of social support as marriage.
How We Got Here, and What We Can Do About It
The reason our society has come to give official recognition to same-sex relationships in varying degrees is because we have redefined the purpose of marriage so that children stand at the periphery, rather than the center. Marriage is now being defined in terms of love, commitment, and personal fulfillment rather than children. Given this redefinition it is no wonder we have considered it “only fair” to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
We will only succeed in saving marriage to the degree that we can restore a cultural understanding that marriage is fundamentally about children. Unfortunately, most Christians have bought into the cultural redefinition of marriage themselves, which is why many have been fooled into believing that so long as we retain the exclusive use of the word “marriage” to describe our legally recognized relationship, we have succeeded in preserving the historic definition of marriage. While this may preserve the form of marriage (one man, one woman), it does so only at the expense of abandoning its purpose (procreation and socialization). Given the fact that the historic form of marriage is logically tied to its historic purpose, if we cede that purpose we have no further basis on which to argue for its form. It does us little good to fight over who gets to use the “M” word to describe their legally recognized relationship unless we also fight to reclaim the historic purpose of marriage, and its exclusive right to legal recognition and social support.
For a fuller treatment, including answers to the most common objections, see my article “I Now Pronounce You Man and Man?”: An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage
Thinking to Believe 
May 26, 2008 at 10:24 am
Jason,
In your article, you wrote that if marriage is a construct of the state, then there is no principled reason to prohibit group marriage. I would respond that if marriage is about forming families for procreation, there is no principled reason to prohibit group marriage. The fact that government does not recognize polygyny strongly suggests that marriage is not about procreation, or at least not entirely. No matter how you slice it, the limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is arbitrary.
Citing to the opinion of Justice Cordy, a dissenting state appellate judge whose views were rejected by his peers, you write that “there is only one reason the government has promoted and protected marriage: they produce the next generation of society.” What is the basis for the claim?
Ultimately, we simply don’t know why governments enacted their laws hundreds and often thousands of years ago. We could similarly speculate why governments worldwide sanctioned slavery, and why they tended to pick particular peoples, and conclude that slavery is acceptable because it’s old.
Perhaps the only reason that gay marriage was not universally recognized thousands of years ago to the present is because of ignorance and bigotry. As the ignorance and bigotry subside, recognition of gay marriage is a necessary consequence.
Another possibility is that the law should provide marriage benefits to all couples who are able to bear or adopt children. Because gay couples were unable to adopt in past centuries, there was no need to allow them to marry. Now that the laws allow gays to adopt, the purpose of marriage applies and gays should be allowed to marry.
You write: “[It can be argued that gay couples can nurture children.] This is a valid argument, but it is limited in application. It would not argue for same-sex marriage in general, but only those cases in which a homosexual couple is raising a child together.” But you provide no basis for that. Why doesn’t it argue for same-sex marriage? If marriage is given to all heterosexual couples, including those very old or certainly infertile because they all have the ability to adopt and nurture children, why wouldn’t it also apply to gay couples?
The institution of marriage has changed over time. Even if marriage was once about arrangement by parents for the purpose of children, most of us do not have arranged marriages today. Claiming that marriage is “really” about arrangement by parents, or other antiquated notions, does nothing to address marriage as it exists today. Marriage today is about love, pension benefits, death benefits, and the like with children at the periphery. Most couples have sex before marriage and use birth control while married.
An antiquated version of marriage’s original purpose might show that the government’s limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples was not enacted with a discriminatory intent. But marriage today is a different institution. It’s like those dietary rules against eating pork from thousands of years ago; they may have made perfect sense in their time and context, but they don’t speak to modern man.
You write that marriage is not defined by society, but recognized by it. But society’s suppression of polygyny shows otherwise. Laws against interracial marriage, first cousin marriage or second cousin marriage, varying from state to state, show otherwise.
Our legal system evolved from the Roman Catholic Church. (Which is why you see the prevalence of Latin terms.) If marriage preexists the law, then who determines who is really married or not married? The Catholic Church says that it continues to be the arbiter of who is truly married or unmarried, regardless of secular legal recognition. Perhaps you would defer to the Pope?
Arthur
LikeLike
May 26, 2008 at 10:50 am
I forgot to mention another institution that has changed over the years: the home mortgage interest deduction (HMID).
The HMID was created to help farmers, not to help individual home owners.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1382.html
It treats interest on a home like a tax-deductible business expense, rather than a non-deductible personal expense.
Two things. First, do you think you could determine the original purpose of the HMID by looking at it today and guessing? Or by hearing what politicians say its purpose is? Second, does the fact that the HMID’s purpose is no longer in line with its current use mean that the HMID should be eliminated, or curtailed to conform to its original purpose?
LikeLike
May 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Limiting marriage to one man and one woman is not arbitrary. I cannot state the reason any clearer than Robert Grognon: “The principle of monogamy, restricting a sexual relationship to two persons at a time, is predicated on the twoness or binary character of the sexes. Because there are essentially two and only two sexes, the presence of a male and female in a sexual relationship is necessary and sufficient for reconstituting a sexual whole, so far as the number of persons in the union is concerned. A third party is neither needed nor desirable.”
Furthermore, there are practical difficulties associated with polygamy that society has deemed best to avoid, one of which is that polygamy tends to devalue women in a practical sense.
As for Justic Cordy’s dissent, the fact that “his side” lost does not mean anything. The lone dissenting justice in Plessy v Ferguson lost as well, but everyone today agrees with his dissent rather than the majority opinion. As for the basis of his claim, I don’t have documentation for you, but I’m sure Paco might be able to supply us with some examples from British common law. Three things should be said. First, I am not claiming there are no other reasons, but all such reasons would be secondary. Second, even if we didn’t have any written documentation it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why governments are involved in the marriage business. It’s not because they are interested in your love. They’re not. Do you really dispute that? Thirdly, even in the recent CA Supreme Court case the majority admits that marriage has traditionally been about children. Generally, when a point is conceded by your opponent it is a strong point.
As for gays being able to adopt, see my paper for a response. In fact, almost every objection you bring up I have dealt with in my paper: (not all heterosexual couples have children, marriage has changed over the years, etc.
How is marriage today a different institution? Do you want the government regulating anybody and everybody’s private relationship, or should there be a just cause for them doing so? Should they regulate friendships? The government should stay out of people’s personal relationships. The only reason for them to regulate marriage is because of children. But today some are wanting the government to take the role of validating specific types of relationships. But for what?! What purpose does it serve society? How do same-sex relationships benefit society that society should privilege and sanction their relationship? Only the same-sex couples stand to benefit, and the way they will benefit is by getting social approval. That’s it.
You wrote, “You write that marriage is not defined by society, but recognized by it. But society’s suppression of polygyny shows otherwise. Laws against interracial marriage, first cousin marriage or second cousin marriage, varying from state to state, show otherwise.” Being recognized by and being defined by are two different things. If marriage has a nature as I am arguing, then a government can define it in a way that does not match its nature. That is what a government is doing if they legalize polygamy or outlaw interracial marriages. But those laws cannot change the nature of what marriage is. When we outlawed interracial marriage we were acting in opposition to what marriage is. Race is irrelevant to marriage, but the same cannot be said about gender.
I’m not even sure if I should take your last paragraph seriously. For one, marriage does not have to be recognized by the State for it to be a true marriage. Second, our laws derive from British common law, not the Catholic Church.
Jason
LikeLike
May 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Your analogy is flawed because you are comparing a synthetic institution with a natural institution. The core purpose of a natural institution cannot change over time without violating it, whereas a synthetic institution can be.
Jason
LikeLike
May 27, 2008 at 5:18 pm
>>You wrote, “You write that marriage is not defined by society, but recognized by it. But society’s suppression of polygyny shows otherwise. Laws against interracial marriage, first cousin marriage or second cousin marriage, varying from state to state, show otherwise.” Being recognized by and being defined by are two different things. If marriage has a nature as I am arguing, then a government can define it in a way that does not match its nature.<< In your answer, you focused on the issue of race which currently has an easy answer (only one answer is acceptable). But there are plenty of other differences, such as familian relationship varying by state to state. Does second cousin marriage violate the true nature of marriage? What about first cousin? How can any of these specifics be a part of the true nature of marriage?
LikeLike
May 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Again, this is an example of the government regulating marriage for social interests. Why prohibit marriages between close relatives? Because their children are often born with biological or psychological problems and this is a liability for the State. But in prohibiting this they are not changing the definition or purpose of marriage, so it is moot.
Jason
LikeLike
May 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Is a marriage between close relatives a true and valid marriage, but prohibited by law for societal reasons? Or is such a marriage a non-marriage merely called “marriage” by the government? And how do you determine which is which?
As to the quote by Robert Grognon, it’s entirely unsatisfactory, simply assertions of opinion unsupported by any obvious basis. The fact that it’s possible for one male to be with one female does not suggest, let alone demand, that a proper relationship be monogamous. Nature itself teaches us that one male with multiple females (and females with multiple males) is entirely common in the animal world, just as with humanity. And polygamy is Biblical.
LikeLike
May 28, 2008 at 2:45 pm
A marriage between close relatives is a genuine marriage, whether it is recognized by the government as such or not. How do we determine this? As I said, marriage is a natural institution. Whatever fulfills its natural purpose is a marriage, and whatever doesn’t is not a marriage. While marriage between close relatives may be dangerous for the offspring (or just plain revolting to our sensibilities), it is a genuine marriage because it fulfills the purpose and form of marriage, even if society prefers not to allow such marriages.
Characterizing Grognon’s comments as assertions is entirely unfair. He did not assert anything. He argued for male-female, monogamous marriage based on sexual dimorphism. How is arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman because only one man and one woman are necessary for sexual wholeness not an obvious basis? Is it not obvious that the two sexes complement and complete the other? And how is that not support for his conclusion?
As for monogamy, you seem to be confusing what marriage is with what is permissible for married people to do. Clearly marriage involves monogamy. How do I know this? Because the State only recognizes those who choose to solemnize their relationship. They are not recognizing the people you may choose to have affairs with on the side. Furthermore, even if more than two people wanted to have their relationship solemnized, there is no reason to recognize any more than two people because only two sexes/people are necessary. Any others are a third wheel.
Of course animals have multiple partners. But they don’t have marriage either. They are not moral creatures, and don’t think in moral terms. They are driven by instinct. Unless you want to demean humans down to the level of animals, using animal behavior to justify human behavior is not a good road to go down. Besides, there are some monogamous animals, so should I use those to say humans should be monogamous? No, it would be just as fallacious. It is the is-ought fallacy. You cannot get an ought from an is. Animals often practice infanticide, so should we? The black widow kills her man after she sex. Should human women do the same?
As for polygamy being Biblical, you need to qualify your statement. Yes, we find polygamy practiced in the Bible, but we find murder practiced in the Bible too. What follows from that? The question is whether God endorsed polygamy. I think it’s clear that he allowed it for a time (just like he allowed divorce), but it’s also clear that this was not his ideal. And it’s clear that he never promoted it.
Jason
LikeLike
May 31, 2008 at 8:19 am
He argued for male-female, monogamous marriage based on sexual dimorphism. How is arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman because only one man and one woman are necessary for sexual wholeness not an obvious basis? Is it not obvious that the two sexes complement and complete the other? And how is that not support for his conclusion?
It doesn’t follow, and I think it’s obvious.
As an example, take a business partnership. In order to have a partnership, you need two people and you achieve wholeness. Should we disallow any partnerships with more than two people? Is a third person, or a dozen persons, both unnecessary and unwanted?
Another example. A farmer uses one rooster to fertilize a whole henhouse. Is that improper, inappropriate, unnatural because of dimorphism? Is it self-evident that because one rooster and one hen achieve wholeness, that more than one hen is both unnecessary and undesirable?
Of course not. I’m not aware of anybody who truly believes these naturalism or dimorphism arguments. The lack of any consistency in applying the arguments – perhaps using the argument only in this one context and ignoring it in all other contexts – shows that people don’t really believe them.
These are shallow pretexts, an attempt to use non-religious reasoning to justify a religious belief. There’s nothing wrong with a legitimate secular argument against polygamy. For example, a fairness argument against a few high-powered males getting most of the females. But the argument needs to make sense.
LikeLike
June 1, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Jason,
While on the subject of natural concepts: Do you think that paternity, like marriage, is something that exists apart from the law, and that society can simply describe paternity not define it? Is fatherhood something that is defined by the law or something that is described by the law?
For example: If the law says that a man is the “father” (legal father) of a child, but it is known (perhaps even proven) that he is not the biological father, is he really a non-father? Can the law turn a non-father into a father by expanding the law to include those not biologically related?
LikeLike
June 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Arthur,
The business partnership is a bad analogy. First, to run a business you do not need more than one person. Of course, more might be better because it might mean more $ to work with. Secondly, unlike sex, there are multiple purposes for a business (make money, help the community, fulfill a social need, etc.), none of which require a certain number of persons, or the presence of certain genders to fulfill it.
Your rooster analogy is also a bad choice. First, no more than one rooster is necessary for one hen to achieve sexual wholeness. Obviously it doesn’t take two hens or two roosters to successfully copulate. Can one rooster impregnate an entire henhouse? Of course! And one promiscuous man can father many children by many different women too, but what follows from that? We’re talking about what is required to fulfill the natural purpose of our sexual organs. To do so, only two people of the opposite sex are required. Can those two people have sex with other people? Of course. But that is not the issue. Which brings me to my second point. Roosters are not moral creatures; humans are. Do you really suggest we look to roosters and their farmer “pimps” to determine what is moral for humans, or how we ought to define marriage?
The argument that marriage only needs two people of the opposite sex because the proper use of sexuality only needs two people of the opposite sex is a solid basis for determining the proper form of marriage, unless of course you want to say marriage is not a natural institution, but merely a construct of the State. If you go that route, however, there is no principled reason to object to any form of marriage the State might want to recognize, or fail to recognize (including same-sex marriage).
Jason
LikeLike
June 2, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Arthur,
Your father question hinges on the definition of father. If we are speaking biologically, the father is the father regardless of what the State says. The proof is in the DNA, not Congress. If we are speaking functionally, the father can be a male figure who is caring for the child’s needs (financial, emotional, etc.) similar to the way in which a biological father would. While the State may wish to define these for the purposes of settling legal disputes, the fact of the matter is that the State would not have to legally recognize either, and yet both concepts would remain. The male responsible for creating the child would still be the biological father, and a man who raises a child who is not his own as if that child was his own is still functionally equivalent to a father. I’m sure I did not need to tell you this, so what is your point?
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm
[…] A Concise Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage […]
LikeLike