In Defense of Traditional Marriage

          A shorter version of this blog post was published in the letters section of my local paper, The Chronicle of Centralia, Washington on July 15, 2009.  Despite some local references, I thought it might be of use to the greater conservative community. 

            In the July 1^st issue of The Chronicle, Mr. Smith (Name Changed) gave a spirited defense of domestic partnerships and gay marriage. In his own words, if I don’t support gay marriage, I’m a delusional, short-sighted, jack-booted, goose-stepping buffoon.  There is an old saying among lawyers, “If you have the law pound the law, if you have the facts pound the facts, and if you don't have either pound the table." Mr. Smith is pounding the table.  But within his tirade was a challenge, to explain why some of us oppose his views.  Here is why I support traditional marriage.

            I freely admit that I am a Christian and base my morality upon biblical principles.  For me this is foundational, no law or practice is just if it contradicts Judeo-Christian principles. While these principles are vital to me, I suspect, they are insufficient for Mr. Smith.

          Indeed, at this point, I often hear, “You want to push your Christian morality on everyone else.”  I’m not pushing anything.  I want to preserve what we already have.  It is the liberal left that desires a radical change in society.  It is they, the gay community, who want to push their morality into every community in the nation.   

          A similar refrain from the left is, “You want to legislate morality.”  The vast majority of law is an expression of commonly accepted morality. Something is either good and must be mandated or bad and must be prohibited.  Good and bad are moral judgments. Laws regarding murder, assault, theft, rape, incest, adultery, marriage and much more, come from the Old and New Testament to English Common Law, and thereby to us today.  Is gay marriage good for society and therefore must be legalized?  That is the question we should be asking.    

          Our society runs smoothly because we grow up knowing the principles by which we must abide. Even when people fail to live up to the standard, such as in the case of divorce, they recognize it and, usually, attempt to live better in the future.  While this standard does change, such as the move away from polygamy, it changes slowly and only when a sizable majority of society accepts the change.  Just as abortion is an example of judges imposing a moral standard, gay marriage has never been adopted by the people of any state, only imposed by judges and legislation.

            However, there have been many recent changes to marriage and family.  A mere generation ago liberals dismissed marriage as unnecessary and legislated quick, easy divorce. Now the gay community desires marriage and the liberals tell us it is vital that the nation accede to their demands.  This conservative asks; how will gay marriage strengthen the institution, the society and the nation? How will it help our children?    

          Most of us define ourselves in a variety of ways, by our faith, job, nationality, and even hobbies.  Heterosexuality is a part of how most people define themselves, but it is not the primary definition.  The gay movement self defines itself by the various sex acts; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered.  There is no corresponding heterosexual movement because the vast majority of people do not care about the sexual orientation of people next door or across the street.  As long as that one special person in life has the same orientation the world is just fine.  Do we as a society want to change the long standing definition of marriage and all the laws that go with it because groups, who define their members according to various sex acts, now desire it?     

          Gay marriage is not marriage. Like a circus mirror it distorts the original. For millennia marriage has been between men and women.  Once the commonly accepted definition is lost what shall define a marriage? Any two people? Could three people then be a marriage? Why then deny two sisters who want to marry?  Let your imagination run because once the traditional definition is lost, I don’t believe there will be either legal grounds or wise enough officials to define any limit.  And all the different “families” you can imagine will demand the “right” to adopt, or otherwise acquire, children.  Again I ask, how will this help children?  The best family unit is a man and woman in a long term committed relationship with their children.  We may not always live up to that standard, but why should society set a lower one?        

            America should strengthen what remains of the foundations of our society, not pander to the demands of a tiny, hedonistic, subculture whose interests run counter to children and marriage.