Yesterday (Friday, Dec. 7) the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will take up two cases involving same sex marriage. At issue in one case is Proposition 8, a California law passed by popular referendum that bars homosexual marriages. The other case involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal benefit purposes as a union between a man and a woman. The justices are expected to hear oral arguments some time in March and issue their opinion by late June.
Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry? We might begin by asking what interest the state has in the question at all. The answer, it would seem, is that the state has a compelling interest in establishing stable home environments in which to raise children. It will be noted in this connection that it is the behavior of heterosexuals, that homosexuals, that is the real concern here, for it is heterosexual couples that are most likely to have children.
How then does homosexual marriage affect the behavior of heterosexuals? The essential problem involves the value system of society and how we define what is "normal" and accepted behavior. Traditionally society has defined the norm as a nuclear family built on a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. "Family life" required a certain kind of behavior from each spouse, and any kind of infidelity was frowned upon. The object, from society's standpoint, was to create a cohesive family unit in which the physical and emotional needs of children could be met.
But if homosexuals are permitted to marry, then what becomes the norm? What, exactly, is the purpose of marriage? What is the rational basis for the legal institution? Why not legalize polygamy or prostitution? Is society prepared to endorse any kind of living arrangement?
The problem can be illustrated by what happened in one of the mainline Protestant denominations, the Presbyterian Church (USA). Prior to 2011 the PCUSA's constitution contained what was known as "the fidelity and chastity clause," which read as follows: "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic standards of the church. Among those standards is the requirement to live in either fidelity within a covenant marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." It was clear and explicit as to exactly what was required in the area of sexual conduct.
But in 2011 the General Assembly (the church's highest governing body) voted to permit the ordination of practicing homosexuals.. This required amending the section mentioned above. It now reads: ". . . standards for ordained service reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life . . . Governing bodies shall by guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates." But it is left to individual presbyteries to decide what it means to "submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ" in sexual matters. In the end it all comes down to a matter of personal opinion. For all practical purposes the PCUSA no longer has a definable standard.
What is worse is that it makes the moral pronouncements of the church on almost any subject suspect – whether social justice, international peace, or environmental responsibility. The church can no longer say with any degree of certainty what is moral behavior in any area of life. And if the Presbyterian Church, long noted for its theological acumen, cannot say, where does that leave the rest of society?
The absence of clearly defined sexual norms, in turn, leads inevitably to the breakdown of the family. Adultery, divorce and fornication all have the effect of destabilizing the family and creating the pattern we now have of single parent households headed by women with a variety of male partners who come and go, and none of which are involved in the lives of their biological offspring. The effects on the children are devastating. An increase in the number of single parent households can be correlated with an attendant rise in crime and poverty.
The loss of moral bearings has implications for the rest of the culture as well. In his Farewell Address George Washington observed that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports." He went on to ask a pointed question: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice"? When we cut loose the bonds of moral restraint no one's rights are safe, because there is no recognizable moral obligation to respect them. Law becomes a function of power, not morality. Might makes right. And once both God and family are removed as controlling influences in society, the state of necessity fills the void.
A Supreme Court decision adverse to traditional morality seems likely, but this is a development that did not happen in a moment. It is the result of decades of erosion of traditional values. We have become, for all practical purposes, an amoral society. No doubt one day near the end of June we will wake up and realize that we now live in a post-Christian culture. But the challenge will be, can we function without a cohesive family structure?
You may also want to see:
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal
The Future of Playboy America
