Friday, March 22, 2013

Moving the marriage fence.

I am posting here a response to a letter in our local paper, The Independent Review, written by Democratic Senator John Marty. You can read the letter here. This is the same letter that was posted to our local paper.

My response is as follows:

Letter to the editor of Independent Review:

“Moving the Marriage Fence”

An old saying goes, “Before you move a fence, you should find out why it was put their in the first place.” Senator John Marty recently wrote a letter to your paper in which he argued that it is now time for marriage equality, and by this he means that we should now allow same-sex couples to get the legal definition and privileges of marriage. He claims that we should do this because most people now support this change and because it is a matter of equality.

Most people have probably not really considered the arguments for or against traditional marriage by which I mean one man and one woman for life, but rather have simply heard sound bites. We should examine the issue a little deeper, because before we move this fence, namely change the definition of marriage, we should understand why it was put there in the first place. Furthermore, we also should consider what the consequences of changing the definition of marriage might be.

Marriage laws have never been about treating people equally. Marriage is in fact about giving privileges to one kind of relationship that we do not give to all types of relationships. There are certain financial, legal and social benefits that marriage laws give to this relationship. The claim that same-sex relationships should get equality is in fact the claim that they should also get extra benefits from the government just like traditional marriages.

But what benefits does society get from marriage that it has a privileged position in the first place? The primary benefit of traditional marriage for society is to provide the best environment for raising children and thereby creating many other societal benefits. Many studies along with our own intuitions show that the best outcomes for kids and even for the couple comes from families made up of a heterosexual couple that stays together long-term. The benefits of long-term stable families led by a Dad and a Mom are better emotional health, financial health, wealth accumulation across generations, and less crime. In the past, this intuitive truth was simply taken for granted because of the common Judeo-Christian ethics that informed western culture, but many people no longer hold to those same ethics, so we are now being asked to change our laws in accordance with new standards. But for our own benefit, we should still consider whether adding new relationships to the definition of marriage provides similar benefits to society.

At best the answer to this question is we do not know because not enough long-term same-sex relationships have been studied, and at worst the answer is no they do not provide those benefits. A recent study, called “New Family Structures Study” by University of Texas at Austin sociologist, Mark Regnerus, helps to verify that traditional marriage still clearly provides the best outcomes. He studied over 3000 adults who grew up in a variety of backgrounds including some that grew up with parents who engaged in same-sex relationships. He found that traditional marriage still clearly provides the best outcomes for children over all other types of relationships. If you doubt this evidence, I encourage you to read the study (it is available on the internet) to see whether or not the study was reasonable and leads to a fair conclusion. If we cannot say for sure that same-sex relationships provide benefit or not, should we be granting them special legal status?

This leads me to the second question we should answer, namely, what is the consequence of making this change? Senator Marty along with many same-sex marriage advocates claims that we should do this because people should be able to marry the person they love. Are they really ready to use that as the primary definition of marriage? If so, then what if someone loves more than one woman or man? Why should those relationships be denied special privileges? Or how about a brother and a sister who have romantic feelings for one another and always have? Why deny them? In fact, why should someone's private feelings of love be taken in to account in public law in the first place? Why should would we discriminate against long-term roommates who are not romantically involved? This same argument used to appeal for publicly recognizing same-sex marriage can be used to justify giving special recognition to all sorts of other relationships.

In fact, lest you think this is simply a silly argument about something that may happen in the future, polygamy advocates are already arguing that they should be able to marry multiple people because that is their desire. If marriage is primarily a public affirmation of private desires, then why limit it to desires for just one person? Either same-sex marriage advocates will need to be open to all other redefinitions of marriage or they will be engaging in the same type of prejudice that they claim others have. Namely, they will be claiming that same-sex desires are good and should be recognized but other people's desires are bad and should not be. The long-run extension of this principle means the choice is not between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, but between traditional marriage and no definition of marriage.

Senator Marty claims that primary reason that people like me oppose is simply because we are trying to push our particular “religious” truth, with the implication that our truth is really just some old-fashioned opinion that should have no bearing on modern policy. You will notice that my entire argument rests not on my “religious” truth, but rather on testable facts about how human society works best. My primary concern is that any laws and benefits written into law should really reflect what is best for society as a whole. On a personal level, I daily deal with the kids and adults who are wounded from broken families because over the last generation we as a culture have already greatly devalued the nuclear family, and my personal passion about this issue arises out of a desire to see stronger families and fewer hurting people.

Do these facts and arguments match my particular religious beliefs? Yes, but they also match the beliefs of many other religions and societies throughout thousands of years, thus our designation of traditional marriage. Furthermore, history shows that traditional marriage provided a strong framework upon which our civilization was built, and modern social science proves that it remains the best foundation that we could have going forward. My hope is that we will think and discuss the issue rationally and with good will toward each other, because if we consider all the facts, we will see that laws encouraging traditional marriage help us continue to have a society of free, happy and healthy people.

Finally, undoubtedly simply by addressing this issue, I will be labeled as a bigot. Some people, perhaps many of those define themselves as gay or lesbian will feel like I am attacking them personally, because they think I am trying to deny them happiness simply because of a prejudiced mind. Let me state categorically that I do not hate you or anyone. I wish you the best, and although we may disagree about what is best for you, me and the world, I have no bad feelings toward you. I hope that you will give me the same benefit of the doubt that you want me to give you, so that you can consider my arguments before you dismiss me as a person. I am also open for dialogue and I have no problem having friendships with people even when we disagree on certain issues and lifestyles. Thanks for giving me a hearing.

Sincerely,
Mike Sechler