In a recent column posted at the ChristianPost.com I urged Christians to more carefully distinguish between our approach to homosexuality as citizens of heaven and our approach as citizens of this nation. The basic idea is that Christians shouldn’t conflate the two approaches, even if both are important. This post is my opportunity to take my own advice.
There will be at least two posts in the series. The first comes not as a Christian, but simply as a citizen of this country. It is below.
1. Let us take as our example what happened in California. More than 60% of Californian voters affirmed that marriage meant what it has traditionally meant in virtually all places at all times. Judges came in discovered somehow that this determination was unconstitutional. If words mean anything at all, if you are a homosexual activist and you are honest you must admit that there is absolutely no basis for that determination. Put the shoe on the other foot. If one day Judges came in and declared that homosexual behavior was unconstitutional despite silence in the constitution of California (or any state, or of this nation) on the subject, would you think that is reasonable? If you are a homosexual I understand that you feel the need to protect your rights, as you perceive them, as a minority. Do you really think its a good idea to get your way by trampling on the democratic process? Can’t you see how that kind of chaos can come back to haunt you?
2. One of my really big problems with the the gay marriage movement is what seems to me its latent irresponsibility. Already in many places gays have everything they want. They can have the civil unions if you’re willing to get the attorney involved, they could re-create most of what one got automatically by ‘marriage’ anyway. This was not enough. It was apparently important to have everyone pat them on the back and affirm them, even if it meant gutting the English language. There seems to be an overwhelming lack of self-confidence here, where it isn’t enough to just have everything you want, but there is also the need to have everyone say nice things about you. Enter ‘anti-hate’ speech legislation.
My problem with this is that it seems like the rush for legitimacy in the eyes of others is on the verge of potentially harming an entire class of individuals that the gay marriage agenda says they care about. That is, the children. Society-wide gay ‘marriage’ has never been tried. For the sake of discussion let us say that we do not yet know that the thousands of children raised in these new arrangements will be greatly harmed. Yet, we do not know that they will be safe, either. Two generations down the road, it might be universally understood just how important it is for a child to grow up within a monogamous heterosexual relationship. It seems unwise to me perform decades of societal experimentation on children just so that those involved in homosexual behavior can feel better about themselves.
Now heading into the second generation after the widespread implementation of ‘no fault’ divorce, the fallout is starting to come clear. Against these social experiments we can set against it thousands of years of experience with the traditional understanding of marriage. How are you, dear homosexual activist, so sure that forty years hence children won’t be scarred? You say they won’t be… on what evidence?
To me, I’d have a lot more respect for gay activists if they didn’t aim simply to get their way but showed that they were responsible enough to address some of these concerns more concretely. For example, there is a huge trove of case law about what to do when traditional marriages crumble. We have ideas on who should get the children and how money should be distributed (these ideas, of course, shaken after the 70s, with consequences still evolving).
For example, generally speaking, courts tend to have children raised by their mothers when marriages fail. Let’s say we have two gay men who get ‘divorced.’ Now what? The courts are going to have to innovate. Obviously, the same concern exists for two gay women.
More ominously, in a traditional marriage where the child is the result of both the father and the mother, courts understand that joint custody is essential. Fathers, I am afraid, have often gotten the shaft in such proceedings, but it is still acknowledged that the child is legitimately his child, too. You can’t just cut him out.
But in a gay ‘marriage’ it is not possible for a child to be the biological offspring of both ‘parents.’ Unless we’re going to labor under the delusion that gay ‘marriages’ are never going to fail, we have to wonder what happens when one breaks. If the child is the biological offspring of one of the partners, but obviously not of the other, should the other have joint custody by rights? Why? On what basis? On what grounds? The biological relationship was a time tested prima facie non-arbitrary factor in evaluation custody issues. That’s all going to be thrown out the window and courts are going to have to make it up as they go along.
As a citizen, I would have a lot more respect for the ‘gay marriage’ agenda if instead of trying to ram through legislation that only insured that they apparently have society’s approval they also rolled up their sleeves and addressed what to do when such marriages fail. Write that legislation now. “Oh, we never thought that our reckless experiment in child rearing could ever fail because of course we never imagined that ‘gay love’ could fail” isn’t going to cut it.
3. If you want to have your lifestyle that doesn’t mean that you get to insist that everyone likes it, too, and that those who don’t are issuing in ‘hate speech.’ That’s ridiculous. I don’t expect everyone to approve of what I say, do, and think. I may point to the Constitution as granting me a right to behave the way I do but I don’t have the audacity to follow it up with legislation calling those who believe otherwise ‘hate mongers.’ This requirement to make everyone like gays and approve of their behavior is immature to say the least. It is also dangerous. Some day, ‘hate’ might be revised and those currently wielding the law may find themselves inflicted by it. Think, people.
The three points above you will note are not couched in religious terms. I do have religious reasons for some of the points… it isn’t a purely secular set of arguments. The main point is that the laws of this land give me the right to speak out and vote on issues that concern me, too. I have reasons for rejecting homosexuality which I will describe in the next post. In the meantime, the questions to gay activists are simply these: are you really sure that you want to deprive dissenters from their rights just to get your way? Are you really sure that it is a good idea to perform social experimentation on future generations without thought about the consequences- to the kids, and in regards to what happens if the experiments break?