Your Public Square

In the wake of the California Supreme Court's ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny gay men and women the right to marry, media outlets have been routinely framing the decision as a conflict between Judeo-Christian traditionalists and those individuals seeking equal rights under the law.

It’s certainly true that the most articulate and weighty critique of this challenge to traditional marriage comes from the Catholic Church, evangelical Christians and what remains of an orthodox Jewish community in America, but the importance of your average American's "gut instinct" on this issue is what will probably overturn this ruling in November when Californians vote on a ballot referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a women only.

It's been pointed out many times before that homosexual activity has been documented in most (if not all) cultures and civilizations. Perhaps the most infamous reference to such behavior in the ancient world, of course, is from the Old Testament. In classical Greek and Roman civilizations, this behavior was commonplace with married men engaging young male prostitutes and slaves without much shame. Yet history tells us nothing about these societies attempting to elevate homosexuality alongside what is now increasingly known as "traditional marriage." And yet despite the vagaries and immorality that existed in these pagan cultures, (infanticide, slavery, abortion, pederasty) the Greeks and Romans knew (How? One might ask) that this behavior was not something their society could encourage nor institutionalize.

Of all the philosophies, cultures, religions and civilizations we know of in recorded history, there is no evidence of any society allowing men to marry men with the full blessing of the state or culture. And if we set aside liberal regions of the U.S., Canada and parts of Western Europe, we conclude that in our world today there is still absolutely no tolerance for the idea that marriage is other than what it has always been.

Two men in Tokyo, Beijing or Bombay can certainly try to obtain a marriage license from their local city clerk, but in all likelihood they will be laughed out of the building. And the interesting thing is that this poor “couple” won’t be able to blame the children of Abraham for their troubles. It’s probably a safe bet that the county registers in Tokyo prefer reading manga over St. Paul’s letters, and I’m almost positive one won’t find Hindu public servants quoting the Book of Genesis as they slam shut their customer service window. One must assume, therefore that this clear, historical, cross-cultural rejection of this behavior throughout history points to something disordered and objectionable about the behavior and that societies have always known it.

We might speculate that what the Catholic Church as well as many philosophers have termed the Natural Law may inform people as they ponder this radical social experiment with no precedence in human civilization. Most people, regardless of religious affiliation, "get" that marriage is a marvelous incubator for successfully raising new human beings. And one of the best ways to ensure that children get a good shot at being stable adults is to make sure they have both a mother and a father. So if we talk about rights in this context, we must insist that a child's right to both a mom and a dad is always considered above the sexual expression of adults.

When Californians vote this November, I wonder how many will simply listen to the whisper of the natural law written on their hearts, and decide in the interests of truth and sanity that only a man and woman can marry in our world or any other.

Labels: Marriage

# posted by Ryan F. Lucey @ 12:05 PM