Gay Marriage, "Ethical Non-Monogamy," and the Future of Marriage

Marriage purists are in a difficult position, it seems to me. In trying to defend the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage, they have little evidence on their side. Perhaps that's why Proposition 8 in California was overturned by the  San Francisco judge yesterday. Or perhaps that's one of the reasons. It has been argued that this judge, who happens to be gay, was going to rule against the constitutionality of Prop 8 regardless of the facts (see "Judge Walker's Phony Facts," link below). However, I remember reading excerpts of the trial when the case first went to this judge, and I was astonished by how seemingly ill-prepared the "Yes on 8" lawyers were. I read this morning in the LA Times that the lawyers for the plaintiffs (No on 8) presented 16 witnesses--some expert, some just regular people--gay couples and families--telling their stories. Contrast this with only two witnesses brought by the backers of Proposition 8--witnesses who apparently, when cross-examined,  made concessions that actually helped the other side.

Of course, a lot's not being said--why were there only two witnesses willing to publicly testify? Their lawyers claim that prospective witnesses for their side refused to testify out of fear for their safety. This would not surprise me. Who can forget what took place after the law was passed in 2008, when individuals and businesses who had supported passage of the law were targeted by opponents, boycotted and ridiculed publicly? No surprise that potential witnesses would be intimidated.

Is gay marriage inevitable? It would appear so. It's hard to argue anymore that the one man/one woman model even works. Divorce, remarriage, adultery, are rampant not only in society at large but in churches. I'd wager that evangelical churches are among the worst, statistically. The argument that having children and raising a family is the ultimate purpose for marriage is also difficult to sustain. What of the countless dysfunctional heterosexual families? What of childless couples who can't bear children? Ought they not be permitted to marry once it's proved they can't bear children? What of single parent families doing quite well, thank you very much? Where are the studies--longitudinal studies--that would be able to irrefutably document the superiority of the mother/father family model? It's too early in the game to document longitudinally whether the single-gender model works. So this road to gay marriage is premature. And yet onward, upward, forward we traipse into unfamiliar and possibly adverse terrain.

The best and only argument that works for me is biology, the propagation of our species. Yes, gay couples can and have figured out ways to have children, through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogates, and so on. But these approaches are inefficient. The male/female reproductive system was perfectly designed for procreation. Societal views about marriage may change, courts may make judgments, Congress may pass laws, but biology will never change. Letting gay men and lesbians marry is an idea that may work for a time, but I'd argue that it's a dead-end from the standpoint of evolution.

What is the future of marriage? Is marriage on the verge of extinction? We marriage purists talk a lot about the "slippery slope" and are mocked in doing so. But one can't help but look beyond the summer of 2010. Gay marriage advocates celebrate this victory, and it has, indeed, been a long hard climb. Perhaps they view this ruling as the pinnacle, or the precursor of the pinnacle as they wait for the case to reach the Supreme Court. But I look beyond this "victory" and ask, What next? Because there is and always will be a "next." I was listening, for example, to a discussion on These Days on NPR radio the other morning on my way to the post office. The topic was non-traditional relationships, polyamory, also referred to as "ethical non-monogamy." Maureen Cavanaugh was interviewing a woman named Dossie Easton, who has written a book called The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures. Here's a woman who has dedicated her professional life to exploring "new paradigms of gender, sexuality, and relationships." When questioned during the program about the traditional Christian view of the marriage relationship, here was her reply:

I think that the polyamorous perspective is largely that spiritual connection can exist beyond marriage and that the connections, that the love connections that we make are sacred, whatever rituals or whatever commitments involved in those relationships are. Certainly, marriage is a very special relationship, I’m not saying it isn’t, but the notion that love can only occur in marriage or that ... sexual love can only occur between two people in one particular kind of relationship, is, in my experience, really just plain not true.

What chutzpah. The audacity.  To dismiss marriage out of hand, marriage, which was designed by her creator "in the beginning," for a purpose. Try looking at the Creator in the eye and saying that again, I wanted to say. This is the slippery slope we are about to tumble down. Because once gay marriage is not only socially acceptable but also legal, there will be another group of disenfranchised people who want social and legal sanction to marry. Does anyone really doubt this?

My hope and prayer is that one by one, as we begin to look objectively at this issue, we will begin to turn back to our creator, first in repentance, and then, maybe, hopefully, in worship.


"The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships" (These Days, March 18, 2010)

"Judge Walker's Phony Facts" (The Editors, NRO, August 5, 2010)

"Indecent Proposal....Intentional Provocation"

Excellent editorial by NRO editors this morning, strongly condemning the proposed construction of a "community center" (mosque) in Manhattan, two blocks from Ground Zero. Those who support the project reject arguments against it, not surprisingly casting opponents as either intolerant or xenophobic. Perhaps this is true of some, or a few. But what I'm hearing from those who are sounding the alarm about this project, is that we have every reason to be quite concerned about a) who is funding this project, and b) the motives behind the project. By reminding readers that the Islamic cleric who is spearheading the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, wrote a book titled, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9-11., and that the word "dawa" means Islamic proselytyzing, the editors make it clear this is not about "religious tolerance" but about something far more insidious.

Barack Obama has been strangely mum on the issue. His press secretary says Obama won't get involved in a "local issue." Since when did "local issue" stop B.O. from opining? There was that little local incident at Harvard, about which Obama had quite the say. And the other local issue in Arizona. Lawsuit, anyone? "Ground Zero," it seems to me, doesn't "belong" to New York. As the NRO editors rightly point out, it is "the gravesite of 3,000 Americans who died at the hands of Islamist radicals" in the single-worst attack on American soil in our history. That block belongs to Americans. I agree with the editors: for shame on those politicians and city planners and leaders for promoting this project.

Not at Ground Zero
(NRO editorial, August 4, 2010)

Wrong on So Many Levels

Just read that the "Cordoba House" project (mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero) has cleared its final hurdle with a vote approving the project by New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission. This is wrong on so many levels. I only hope that, regardless of this vote, there will be a groundswell of opposition at the grassroots level. Shouldn't everyone in the country have a say in this matter?

Cordoba House Clears Last Hurdle, Moves Forward

The Anti-Defamation League Does Not Support Cordoba House

The ADL announced its opposition to the $100,000 mosque project in New York City. See write up here.

This announcement had to take some courage on the part of the ADL since the liberal organization now seems to be on the same side of the issue as arch-conservatives Gingrich and Palin, among others. Yet another example of politics making strange bedfellows.

I hope the arguments against the project, now growing in intensity and prominence, prevail. Surely this decision belongs as much to the nation as it does to New York residents. Ground Zero is the sight of a devastating and unprecedented attack on American soil. The decision about how and what to build on this sight should be a national one. Barack Obama has yet to weigh in. Perhaps he's doing what he does best--waiting it out, sniffing the wind, watching the polls--before staking out a position. While it would be easy to guess where he stands on the issue, here is one non-Obama supporter who hopes he gets it right for once and speaks on behalf of the most Americans in decrying this not-so-subtle attempt by radical Islamist organizations to thumb their noses at the United States. Take a stand, Mr. President.