Moral Inequality (Prop 8)

I feel the need to respond to the news of the debate over Proposition 8, now in judicial turmoil. We’ve heard the arguments on each side of the debate over the California amendment defining legal marriage to be recognized only between man and woman. But in the fray of the debate, the core principles of the American ideology are lost. We are missing the real issue, and I think it’s time we found it.

The current debate is between party lines. Democrats call for equality, that gay couples deserve the right to express their love for each other through matrimonial ceremony. I have a hard time giving this argument any significant play in my mind. It’s an emotional and unreasoned argument. It is akin to a call for women to be allowed to use the men’s restroom and vice versa on the grounds of equality. Civil unions could be accomplished in a ceremonious way if that was really the intent. Most civil unions receive similar tax benefits to married couples. What they really seek is that label of “marriage”, which they would regard as a social acceptance for their life choice.

The majority of Republicans simply do not regard such a life choice as socially acceptable. Marriage was defined by God millennia ago, and we have no right to change its definition. Homosexuality is sin, and thus to legalize it is to corrupt the moral makeup of our society. The majority of religious parents fear justifiably that legal acceptance of gay marriage will result in the indoctrination of their children with lessons of acceptance for what they consider a sin in the public schools.

While each side argues on the moral grounds of their personal beliefs, we blind ourselves to this simple principle: we are free. The concept of America is founded in the fact that all men are made up of distinct moral codes. Each individual comes to a personal conclusion of what he or she believes to be right and wrong. While large groups may come to an agreement on certain principles, no two individuals come an agreement on all ideals. Yet with this infinitely diverse moral makeup, America came together to agree on this one critical ideal, that we are moral agents to ourselves. Provided we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of our fellowman, we are given the privilege to believe as our conscience dictates.

The premise of the debate over Proposition 8 is contrary to the American core. Each side purports moral superiority over the other, thus intending to dictate the nationally acceptable moral standards for all. Should we dictate that all citizens of our nation recognize gay couples as legitimate? (There are already arguments from some that doctors should be forced to provide some procedures (i.e. abortions) even if they are contrary to the moral beliefs of that doctor. Would this type of thinking lead to the obliging of the very churches who preach the immorality of homosexuality to marry the very couples they condemn?) Or should we forcibly deny those who do not believe homosexuality to be sin the freedom to marry as they wish?

The answer is neither. That one individual, or group of individuals, should dictate the moral standards for another against their will is as un-American as it gets. Could we so quickly forget the plight of our founding Pilgrims as they fled the religious dictatorship of Europe?

Government has no role in determining the constitution of marriage. It is a religious rite, established by God (or by the churches if you do not believe in God), intended primarily for the stability of the family. There is no reason, except for the purposes of control and power, for government to assume any role in determining the makeup of a marriage. The only reasons I can conjure for even legal recognition of a marriage is for the establishment of the contractual obligations made in marriage (this can be done voluntarily without recognition of marriage, so this is a non-argument) and for the ability to treat couples and families differently than other citizens (i.e. tax breaks for kids, etc.). Yet, while subsidizing children or giving government preferences to families may seem commendable, it is again a socialist maneuver to force support of one group’s moral ideals on others.

Giving government control and influence over the family situation gives it a power we do not want it to have. If the family becomes dependent on the government for its support, we have lost our autonomy and liberty. Let us stop calling for the government to insert itself in our morals and families, regardless of our personal moral preferences. Let us keep our free agency.

Leave marriage to the churches.