A Critical Flaw in the Popular Conservative Argument against Gay Marriage

The current debate surrounding gay marriage worries me a great deal. Most of my concern rests on the so-called conservative side of the debate. Good and intelligent people are allowing themselves to be drawn toward mean-spirited and ignorant arguments in their desperate fight to preserve heterosexual marriage. Too many people fail to realize that the means of preserving the definition of marriage is as important as the definition itself. Christianity in particular is drawn into the center of this debate, and Christianity cannot afford any moral victory if it is attained through immoral means.

To the point: it appears that conservatives fear the prospect of gay marriage because of the harm it will cause to themselves and their families. “We own the concept of marriage,” so the argument goes, “and if you expand this concept to include an immoral act, then our own marriages suffer. Marriage becomes diluted, sullied, and confusing.” Is that a fair representation? If so, then most conservative people totally miss the point. We should not oppose gay marriage because of the potential harm it causes us. We should oppose gay marriage because it threatens to institutionalize a relationship that causes harm to its own participants.

If any proponent of gay marriage has made it this far into this essay, I’m sure he or she is either suppressing the gag reflex or trying not to punch his or her computer monitor. After all, isn’t it the paragon of patronage to suggest that the homosexual population is hurting itself and therefore needs law to intervene? The suggestion offends a popular democratic sentiment: live and let live. In fact, conservatives themselves are offended by this suggestion. They instinctively know that their opposition to gay marriage is only valid if they can say “you’re hurting me.” If you cannot demonstrate harm to someone other than the gay person, then you must let the thing alone. And so conservatives say it hurts heterosexual marriage, it hurts western civilization, it hurts the children involved in many of these gay relationships, etc. They go through great (and sometimes greatly contrived) pains to demonstrate harm.

I don’t think this argument has legs. In the case of a child brought into a homosexual household, I do believe that that child experiences harm. I believe the homosexual community can make the point that any harm these children receive comes in the form of the bigotry they experience among the heterosexual community. Sadly, I have no doubt that this mean-spirited bigotry is common. I have born witness to it on many occasions. As a half-decent social scientist, I also know that it would be extremely difficult to categorically and convincingly show that children will suffer due to a homosexual home environment alone. I can’t see this case holding up in court, and courts appear to be the stage for current debates.

As for the heterosexual community being harmed, the assertion is both shallow and tenuous. Will the harm come in the form of disillusionment? Such as: a conservative person will be washing the dishes, remember that homosexual people can be legally married, and then have an existential crisis concerning his or her own marriage? Is it not more accurate to say that homosexuality is already fully capable of causing psychic consternation despite its non-legal status? For instance: in the future, we will certainly need to teach our children about homosexual households whether or not the couples involved have a legal stamp of approval. When Sally goes to Jenny’s house and Jenny says she has two mommies, Sally isn’t going to respond, “But are your mommies legally and lawfully wedded?” Or, when Sally goes home and talks about Jenny’s two mommies, will Sally’s mom breathe a deep sigh of relief and say, “Don’t worry dear. They have no legal status,”? These are rediculous thoughts, but I'm afraid they extend naturally from the logical foundation en vogue among conservatives today.

If the majority of the harm is already present, then why not allow gay marriage? Will this issue come down to a bitter schoolyard battle over who gets to play on the monkey bars? I hope not.

There is, from my point of view, a very good reason to oppose gay marriage. It is not a common reason, and its legal foundation is far shakier than its spiritual foundation. Forgive me for a rather lengthy quote, but it sums up the spiritual purpose for heterosexual marriage according to my faith:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

"In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."[1]

It is easy to see how these assertions quickly move this discussion away from matters of law and polity. Family is eternal. Gender is eternal, and gender roles are central to our purpose in this life and the next.

If, against all probability, any proponent of gay marriage has made it this far into the essay, you deserve special commendation. You probably voted for Barak. You also deserve to know why the proclamation of a religious leader should carry any weight in a debate occurring within the secular confines of law. In short: I don’t know. I am not a legal scholar, and if there is a case in favor of using this proclamation to inform U.S. policy, I am ignorant of it. My point is that these doctrines concerning the family provide the clearest and most legitimate basis for opposing gay marriage. I sincerely hope, my esteemed liberal reader, that at least this religious basis for opposing gay marriage is clear and comprehenable.

What was institutionalized when marriage first attained legal status? When did marriage first attain legal status? Again, I don’t know. I assume that monogamous marriage between a man and a woman can be traced back far enough in western memory to pre-date the renaissance by quite a lot. That places the origin of marriage-as-practiced-in-the-United-States deep within an era when all of life's significant events were knit together with religion. By the 14th century—an early date for a start to the renaissance—there may have already been a religious pretext for marriage for hundreds of years. In the course of the renaissance, however, reason replaced religion bit by bit. Over the course of many hundred years, canonic rationales for life’s major events became insufficient.

This was a good thing. Religion itself, I submit, had become detached from spirituality, and it had probably always been political. (You must look very far back on the Judeo-Christian timeline to find a period when religion was not inextricably connected with politics. The modern idea that the two are distinct is quite novel.) However, a politically motivated religion that stands above both spirit and reason can be a very dangerous thing. I’m sure anyone can supply their own examples to support this point.

By the time of the American founding, rule by reason finally eclipsed rule by religion. It would be too much to say that reason in general eclipsed religion; it is my understanding that religion was very much alive and well at the time. Atheism, as a religious alternative, would not become common for many years, correct? And yet, there was rule by reason.

So here’s the thought: We have marriage—a practice born in an age of religion and grandfathered into an age of reason. Enter gay marriage. Suddenly, homosexual groups stake a claim—born of the renaissance—that there must be a reason for excluding homosexuals from marriage. Religious people had taken for granted that marriage was both inherently religious and acceptable within a government based on reason. They weren’t prepared with any reasonable basis for marriage as it already stood. And why should they? Marriage had never been born of reason, and the need for a reason had never come up before. Marriage was--and is--a religious institution. Does it make sense, then, that the proper defense of marriage is a religious defense? I believe this is the case. At the same time, I have no idea how a religious defense can appropriately factor into a government that has anchored itself to reason. Maybe it can. I don’t know.

I know this much: it is unjust to sanction and institutionalize a practice that harms its practitioners. Democracy must make great room for diversity, including the freedom to make bad choices if they do not exceed certain bounds (such as taking human life). Democracy must tolerate a very large range of unfortunate circumstances, but it need not—must not—embrace them. Regardless of any other harms incurred, the greatest harm to come from homosexuality is inflicted on the homosexual couple. Given this reality, it is unjust to institutionalize a way of life that pits a person against his or her own spiritual nature, spiritual destiny, and ultimate joy. That person deserves better. Even if someone wants to harm himself or herself, a moral person at least has the obligation to not support that person in his or her bad decision. Indeed, a moral person would do whatever is appropriate to dissuade that person from following through. Some diversity is to be celebrated. Celebrating other forms of diversity can be cruel. This is the point. This is the appropriate stance in opposition to gay marriage.

What, then, is an appropriate means to counter homosexuality? The harm in question a harm to the spirit, and I know it can only be perceived spiritually. Therein lays the difficulty. It is very convenient to cry foul and then say it is a special foul that only you and a select few can see. Very suspicious. And yet, this is the case, and the onus rests with those who see the foul to persuade those who do not.

I do not believe the proper opposition to gay marriage is found in law. Two passages of scripture sum up my belief regarding opposition to a whole range of sins. The first passage refers to a political leader and prophet who gave up his political power so that he might dedicate himself to spiritually rescuing a people who had fallen victim to sin. His name was Alma:

"[Alma went] forth among his people ... that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them."[2]

"And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that [he] should try the virtue of the word of God."[3]

The second passage refers to how this preaching should occur. What is the appropriate means to spiritually admonish another person? The answer to this question is a quote from the Lord penned by Joseph Smith as he sat in a dank prison in Liberty, Missouri:

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [i.e. by virtue of the authority of an office], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him [or her] whom thou hast reproved, lest he [or she] esteem thee to be his [or her] enemy; That he [or she] may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."[4]

I suppose there are times when it is appropriate to try to alter the law to favor a spiritual point of view, but I imagine they are few, and I would defer to someone far more informed than I (such as a prophet) to signal such instances. However, in the absence of legal intervention, the above scriptures mark a spiritually safe road (socially hazardous though it may be): Learn doctrine. Seek to personally know whether the doctrine is true (the confirmation of spiritual truths, by the way, is revelatory and not rational per se). Teach the doctrine boldly, with love unfeigned; not in anger or defensiveness.

We all sin. There is no room at all for condescension in the spiritual exhortations of one person to another. If we are Christian, then we acknowledge that all people are equally dependent on Christ. No one will return home without Christ’s mercy. Getting home is the point. Helping everyone to get home is the point.

[1] http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
[2] Book of Alma, Chapter 4, Verse 19. Book of Mormon.
[3] Book of Alma, Chapter 31, Verse 5. Book of Mormon.
[4] Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, Verses 41 through 44.