The Inequality of Marriage Equality

The Inequality of Marriage Equality

February 2013

The purpose of this blog-post is to help God-honoring Christians understand the current debate about gay-marriage compared to the marriage-ordination we received from the Holy Bible.  The Bible is clear on the subject, but that's not enough for judicial activists.  Hopefully, this blog post will help us prepare for what's to come.

Introduction

A new social-experiment is being forced on society in the name of “marriage equality” that redefines marriage irrevocably – meaning there is no return once the traditional definition of marriage is changed from a man and a woman to include gay-marriage.  As the saying goes, a little bit of corruption spoils the whole batch.

The US Supreme Court will hear two cases on March 26 and 27 that challenge the definition of marriage and they will be decided by one vote – Justice Kennedy.  If marriage is redefined it will signal an end is coming to marriage-culture in America according to some academicians.  At a minimum the traditional-definition of marriage will continue to be challenged at state-levels.

Background

Our fatherless president, Barack Obama, grew up outside of the marriage-culture and obviously has little understanding of it.  He decided the traditional-definition of marriage is indefensible as it is spelled out in DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) though it was passed by a bipartisan congress and senate and a democratic president signed DOMA into law to affirm the federal definition of marriage – which was a man and a woman as it applied to federal benefits.  Obama the illegitimate, bypassed the democratic process and the Creator he claims to worship.  

Barack Obama claims DOMA was passed without "reasonable cause" or a "rational basis" for the sole purpose of discriminating against gay Americans, and he refuses to defend it.  Obama has many other extreme views that his own party can't accept and it's little wonder the US government is the most dysfunctional it's ever been since the days of the founding fathers.  His claim to the Christian faith goes against the Creator's design as well, and his fate awaits him.  God have mercy.

DOMA came about when Hawaii (his state of birth)  challenged the standard-definition of marriage known by everyone, and the act stood by the definition of marriage that was applied to all previous federal legislation.  The federal definition of marriage remained consistent with what it always had been and the states continued to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves under federal principles.  

Some of the same democrats that passed the bill are still serving in the government today and recently they changed their minds about gay-marriage for some curious reason – like maybe their convictions go no further than the voting booth.  Currently there are millions of Americans that think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but they draw the line with traditional-marriage.  

The president acknowledges that many Americans feel this way, but according to him -- gays will not have equal protection under the law unless the definition of marriage is changed, even though other unions are available to address their unique circumstances which differ from traditional-marriage.  The argument says their union is equal to traditional-marriage and hence the definition of marriage must change so they will benefit equally under the law.  

Hence, with the new definition of marriage in place -- you could find gay-couples one evening cruising gay-bars in pursuit of liberty while traditionally-married parents were staying up all night with babies and going to work the next morning -- each group of couples doing something common to their cultures -- and somehow this scenario requires equal protection in the context of "marriage."

The Culture of Marriage

Marriage has been defined as a man and a woman throughout the ages and through all societies and cultures.  It’s well understood that procreation is the building-block for a society, and that parents want a viable-habitat for their offspring as they become future-citizens and do likewise with their offspring.  The courts recognize that two biological-parents have a genetically-vested-interest in posterity that no other parenting arrangement offers.

 

It's a basic human-instinct felt by both biological-parents – and it's a strong-bond that assures the health and well-being of children, grand-children, and future-generations.  Courts and legislative bodies recognize the importance of biological-parenting.  Tax codes and property laws are designed to help facilitate everything from child-rearing to property-inheritance.  Even though our president is a parent he does not seem to understand the marriage-culture or the fragility of traditional-marriage at this time in history.  He views government as a surrogate-parent for everyone where he’s the father.

Gay Rights in America

Gays have been stigmatized and persecuted through the ages because of an inclination they have that is not fully understood.  It apparently comes from a combination of social, environmental, and biological factors.  The courts recognize it’s a deeply-felt condition and it goes to the core of their personal identities but it hasn't reached a class-status like race or sex that justifies a heightened review for discrimination in the court system.

Gay people live in a world that’s hard to fit-into.  It’s argued that they made poor moral-choices and they need to change.  Some have changed – but the vast majority of those that tried have failed and many live with a condition they don’t want.   For them it’s a pitiable situation. They continue to function in society, but they’re unable to pursue the same dreams that other people have -- including marriage.

Gay-marriage has been proposed to help change this situation for them, but does it also change the situation for everyone else as well?  Once gay-marriage becomes law it’s irrevocable and there is no history of gay-marriage to go by. 

Many Americans feel the facts have not been forthcoming. This makes them feel uneasy about the uncertainties surrounding gay-marriage and its irrevocability.  Hence some states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a man and a woman until the democratic process can sort things out.

Gold Standard for Marriage and Parenting

Childbearing is typical in a traditional-marriage and it’s the gold-standard where both parents are responsible for the care, development, and upbringing of their biological-children.  Children from this unit are most likely to get an education beyond high school, maintain employment, and continue in the marriage-tradition according to social statistics.  The gold-standard is impossible for gay couples, and hence it’s trivialized in the gay-marriage argument.

Marriage laws provide a safety-net for all family-members in the events of unplanned-pregnancy, birth-defects, childbirth through marital-infidelity, divorce, and disposition of family inheritance.  This safety-net seems rather inappropriate for gay-couples with no vested interest in biological-parenting.  As an analogy, it's like a perfectly healthy person parking in an empty handicapped-space that’s convenient to their cause, but it displaces someone else that’s truly handicapped.

In summary, there is no similarity between traditional-marriage and gay-marriage at the gold-standard level.  There is no comparison between a gay couple and biological parents that bear the risks and responsibilities of child-birth. If the law treats them equally, it produces an inequality for the majority of the outcomes in a traditional-marriage.  

Silver Standard for Marriage

Gay-marriage advocates minimize the importance of the gold-standard to focus on the weaker examples of traditional marriage, pointing out that some couples get married when they are not capable of having children and some don’t ever intend to have children when they marry.  Social statistics show that only 1/3 of all childless marriages last 10 years or more. This is not the intended outcome of marriage though "childless marriage" is the foundation-axiom for the gay-marriage argument.

As many of us find out in marriage – the marriage bond grows where you’ll want children regardless of your intentions in the beginning.  It’s just the way nature works. In reality nobody knows for sure when the capacity to procreate ends for one or both partners in a traditional-marriage.  There are couples that have children whether they intended to or not and there are couples that have children that thought they could not.  

To justify the gay-marriage argument of childless marriages, one must have the foreknowledge of God -- knowing which couples won't have children before they marry.  Everybody knows that gay-partners can't have children between themselves though many are fully capable of producing children in the biological way.  The only problem is that biology doesn't work for them.

Menopause typically ends childbearing for women but marital-infidelity by a male-spouse can cause unplanned-pregnancies.  This is not the intended consequence of marriage either but the outcome affects both parties in marriage.  On the other-hand gays won’t become pregnant from infidelity unless it’s with the opposite-sex -- thus weakening their claim to a strongly held gay-identity and weakening their cause in the gay-marriage debate.  Hence gay marriage doesn't relate to the silver-standard.

Bronze Standard

But let’s not forget about the people that divorce and remarry – and gay-marriage could be the same thing.  Well maybe not – because typically they can still have children according to the gold or silver standard.  Divorced people from traditional-marriages could remarry as a gay-couple with children, but we can’t compare them without jeopardizing their claim of an immutable gay-identity. 

Moral Conscience

People in the marriage-culture typically get married for the sake of being morally-responsible to their partner and to society rather than living in co-habitation which is an undesirable outcome to society. The reasoning is based on their religious-convictions and moral-conscience, and it applies the same whether they end up with children or not.

Government recognizes these strongly-felt-convictions and the benefits of traditional-marriage to society -- therefore preachers are licensed with the legal-capacity to marry couples.  

Moral conscience doesn't fit for gay-marriage and no equality  is found here.  No benefits for society can be shown.

Conclusion

After diligently searching for marriage-equivalence it can’t be found even at the extreme-ranges of traditional-marriage, hence traditional-marriage and gay-marriage are unequal across-the-board.  There’s really no way to make them equal.  

Everyone should have equal-rights when those rights can be applied in the same way, but equal-protection-under-the-law is irrelevant to unions that are fundamentally unequal.  

Gay-marriage is found to have no equal -- the comparison is incomparable and the new equality is the new inequality at the expense of traditional-marriage.  Some states have already taken the irrevocable-step by redefining marriage.  Someday they’ll probably regret their hasty decisions.