Gay Marriage, Christianity, and Libertarian Views

AP Headline today: "Bush Leads Support Against Gay Marriage." Pete Yost is the Associated Press author. Below is the lead paragraph.

President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

How?

First of all, legally a marriage is "a mere legal contract." I believe that the statistics I've read say that the divorce rate in the US is around 50%. I've been divorced, as has my wife. We expect to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary in November in our second marriages, which was better for both of us that either of our first marriages.

And I recall that it wasn't all that long ago that divorce was barely tolerated in this country. Divorces were difficult to obtain, especially for women.

I bring this up only to point out that attitudes have obviously changed in my lifetime about what marriage is. I do believe, from my own experiences and from anecdotal evidence, that nearly everyone who gets married has it in mind that they will remain with this other person till one or both of them dies. They mean it at the time. But people change, and sometimes people aren't as accomodating to change as the other person needs them to be.

According to President Bush, again quoting from the AP story:

Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution," he said.

I think I've just called into question the basic assumption that marriage must have some enduring meaning. Yet I'll grant that President Bush is referring to the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is true, and I would be disengenuous if I denied it, that such has been the traditional meaning of marriage.

It is also true that really until the last hundred years or so marriage was more viewed as a property settlement than an institution of love. Love often had little to do with marriage in human society, and even with societal strictures against divorce, people have walked away from bad or unhappy marriages since the beginning of human civilization.

Historically, marriage has been a way to traffic in women, treating them as chattel or even cattle. Ours has been, and continues to be, a male dominated society, and marriage has been historically our shining beacon of male dominance and female dependence. As we attempt, slowly and painfully, to move toward a different paradigm than male dominance--and it won't change in my lifetime, I'm sure--why not look at alternatives that provide for the common welfare while allowing individuals the freedom they desire.

I know that the Bible is cited as the source of God's condemnation of homosexuality. Yet, as I read the Bible, what I find is that male homosexuality is condemned. Nothing is said about female homosexuality. Are we to believe that the one existed but the other did not? Somehow I doubt it, but if the Bible is to guide us in this, then it must be okay for females but not okay for males. Why would that be?

My personal view is that I don't have to do what I don't want to do or feel comfortable doing. I don't have to marry. I certainly don't have to marry another man. I think society's laws should be for the protection of people from harm and that where someone is not harmed, no law is needed. I am not harmed by homosexuality. My experience is that the people involved, assuming they are mature enough to know what they're doing, are not harmed by homosexual activity.

I don't think the state, any state or nation, has the right to legislate against harmless activities. I particularly think the state should stay out of the bedroom and the living room and the kitchen. The only laws states should have regarding marriage is to set a commonly agreed age for mature consent and ensure that people are protected from harm. (Hell, I would argue that when I got married legally the first time, I was too immature to do so, even though I thought I loved my wife and I wanted, still want, to care for my children.)

If anybody wants to argue the point, I'll be interested in hearing from them. Please don't argue using the Bible. I've already shown in part, and am prepared to show in detail, how that will not be an argument that will sway me. Tell me how somebody else's marriage can hurt YOU, and I'll be interested in your point of view.