Tag Archives: children

It has to do with the introduction of birth control pills

How will the Supreme Court rule in this week’s gay marriage cases? I have no idea. What I do know is that the outcome almost doesn’t matter. One way or another, gay marriage will be legal throughout the country before long.

That’s not the riskiest prediction. Plenty of pundits have said the same thing based on the stunningly rapid shift of public opinion on the issue. But public opinion can be fickle. How do we know that current trends will continue and that a backlash against gay marriage isn’t right around the corner? Because even the best arguments employed by its smartest opponents are utterly unconvincing.

SEE MORE: 9 negative effects divorce reportedly has on children

To be clear, I’m not talking about the explicitly religious case against gay marriage. Arguments based on orthodox Catholic, evangelical Protestant, Orthodox Jewish, or Mormon premises premises grounded in the revelations, scriptures, and traditions of particular faith communities are often perfectly valid. It’s just that our constitutional order doesn’t rest on those premises, and members of those communities lack the numbers to impose their views on the country as a whole through majority vote.

What I mean are the arguments advanced by those opponents of gay marriage who claim to have reason on their side who wish to persuade citizens of goodwill regardless of their religious commitments (or lack of commitments). Foremost among these opponents is Robert P. George of Princeton University, lead author of an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court. No critic of gay marriage has gone further in claiming that reason alone can tell us to reject gay marriage and no critic has done more to demonstrate (inadvertently) how deeply confused the case against gay marriage really is.

SEE MORE: Why is everyone shocked Victoria’s Secret markets to teenagers?

George and his co-authors Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson make the following argument: “Our civilization” has univocally defined marriage as a “conjugal union” between one man and one woman that is, a union between two people that is oriented to the goal of producing children. Whether or not a particular male-female couple can produce a child is irrelevant. In cases of infertility due to medical defect or advanced age on the part of one or both members of the marriage, the union falls short of reaching its goal but remains oriented to that goal nonetheless. (The union would produce a child if the bodies of both members were functioning as they should.)

Advocates of gay marriage, by contrast, seek to promulgate an alternative a “revisionist” definition of marriage, one based not on producing children but on “emotional fulfillment, without any inherent connections to bodily union or procreation and family life.” (“Inherent” does a lot of work in that sentence, since gay couples can and do adopt children and devote themselves to family life. But because such couples can’t produce the children themselves, their union remains, by George’s definition, a non-procreative partnership.) This revisionist, non-procreative form of marriage would detach the institution from ideals of “permanence and exclusivity” that flow from child-rearing. That is, once couples cease viewing their union as oriented to the goal of producing children, divorce and infidelity will become commonplace. And since society has a stake in encouraging stable families, advocates of gay marriage must not be allowed to prevail.

SEE MORE: Bully pulpit: Can Obama save gun legislation?

View original post here:

How gay marriage ‘s fate was sealed more than 50 years ago