Senate GOP Angles for Federal Marriage Amendment shows that news coverage of gay marriage is generating Congressional action.
I believe strongly that the definition of marriage should not change. I have struggled to make an explanation that is more than a gut reaction. I have thought through the history of Western marriage, and I understand how the gay activists suggest that marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals based on these legal trends.
Think about it. In medieval England, marriage was a specialized form of property conveyance. The woman was property being exchanged to the groom for hard assets like livestock and land. Add on top of this the political alignments that would follow reinforced the barter aspect. "I will give your son my daughter if you will give me political support and military resources."
In this context, even ignoring the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity, it did not make sense to have man capable of owning property thereby own another legally free man by a marriage contract.
The old notions of women as property have thankfully fallen away. Nevertheless, the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity prevented the issue of gay marriage from arising simultaneous to female freedom.
Only now after the rise of the "gay lifestyle" are we going back to re-examine the full legal ramifications of female equality in the marriage contract.
From the proponents of gay marriage, marriage is nothing but a contract. Why should gays not be able to participate in such contracts? Seems logical, right?
Being Protestant, I don't often get the opportunity to see the "old church" of Catholicism in action. I went to a Catholic wedding yesterday. That ceremony reinforced the old Catholic doctrine that creating and raising children is one of the central parts of marriage in the Catholic tradition.
While this doctrine is "old fashioned," it is practically sound. Without reciting research and practical examples of two heterosexual parent stability, children are better with male and female influence. Does that make it impossible for a gay couple to serve as good parents? No. Is it even necessary to have two parents? No. It is still the optimal solution when comparing healthy heterosexual couples to healthy homosexual couples.
In my observations of successful behavior, work, business, economics, and loving relationships, one common characteristic predominates: systematic and adaptive structure. In any of these cases, systems well implemented do not guarantee success. They merely increase the probability of success. We know from research that the most probable family structure that leads to good behaviour and healthy attitudes is the "traditional stay-at-home mother, father working" system. It does not have universal success. We are human.
Every factor that moves away from that scenario increases the probability of a small problem having increased difficulty in the long term health and success of the children of that household.
Unlike many of my "religion dictates government rules" friends, I believe that we as a society should state what optimal family situation is desirable and structure the society to encourage optimal behaviour and attitudes. If we can set the vision of success, the likelihood of that becoming predominate increases. Laws are written accordingly. However, that does not mean criminalizing other views. To be extreme, law should not prohibit homosexual child raising. It should make it the less favored approach.
Lifelong heterosexual marriage with healthy relationships should receive the benefits of all doubts. It should be treated differently because the wider the application of that method of family building, the greater health of our society. That is is a fact.
Here's a thought exercise: will you as a driver never have an auto accident if you religiously change the oil in your car, rotate the tires on schedule, and replace the brake pads at the slightest sign of wear? Never say never. Other factors are signficant: other people on the road being just one. However, is your ability to avoid likely problems that lead to accidents? Absolutely. Desired systems of behavior make safer roads. The same with marriage and children.
Discussion of the matter without children is a discussion for another day.
