By Jane M. Orient, M.D.
One of the key arguments for gay marriage is that it is not fair that heterosexuals may marry their soul-mate, but homosexuals may not.
But this is not, and never has been, true.
There are all kinds of restrictions on marriage. Probably the most common reason why you can’t marry your soul-mate is that your best beloved doesn’t want to marry you, or is already married to someone else. She might be too young or too closely related. Or the match just isn’t considered suitable by society.
Romeo and Juliet were not allowed to marry – remember?
If you were Austrian royalty, you had to marry royalty. Mere nobility wouldn’t do.
Mixed marriages have always been discouraged, if not actually forbidden, by many groups. When I was young, a Catholic could not marry a non-Catholic, at least not in a Catholic church. Orthodox Jews oppose mixed marriages. Hindus could not mix castes. Some Muslims will not recognize mixed marriages, and as recently shown, may even punish them as adultery.
Inter-racial marriages have often been forbidden. We may think that is a disgraceful position to take, although these days multiculturalism tolerates many worse things. Certainly, we deplore the view that certain races are subhuman, although many people still seem to hold it. I have read that if you travel widely in China and understand the language, you will learn that white people are considered subhuman. Evidence: White men have hair on their chests!
But gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage. White women, black women, Asian women are all women. They produce female gametes and have a womb. Their genitalia are indistinguishable in the dark. They can produce a normal child with a man of another race. But two persons of the same sex can never produce a child. They can engage in mutual sexual stimulation, but they cannot mate, any more than two male plumbing or electrical connectors can mate.
Marriage is not about romance or individual happiness. It is about societal sustainability. That’s why arranged marriages have been so common throughout history. Marriage unites two families, with progeny having a blood relationship to members of both families. It is designed to pass on life, culture, property, skills and language to the next generation. Some think it was invented to establish paternity – and to civilize men. As Rudyard Kipling wrote in “Just So Stories,” cavewoman made caveman wipe his feet before entering the cave. The Austrian Empire used royal marriages for keeping peace.
For devotees of Darwinism, homosexuality is an evolutionary non-starter. And while homosexual attractions date back to time immemorial, there is no history of long survival of a culture that practiced homosexual marriage. Rome did for a time, and Emperor Nero reportedly had several gay marriages, both as “bride” and “groom.” Same-sex marriage was outlawed there a century later in the Theodosian Code.
In the U.S., homosexuals can live together and make all kinds of contracts, as for inheritance of property. The state no longer takes any interest in what they do in private. But marriage is public. Society has decided to confer various benefits on married couples, likely in order to compensate for their duties and responsibilities.
In demanding the “right” to marry, homosexual couples are demanding public approval of a mode of behavior condemned in Judeo-Christian culture since the Book of Genesis with its account of Sodom and Gomorrah. They also are demanding that the public pay for privileges not available to persons who do not engage in state-licensed marital intercourse or sodomy. Siblings, platonic friends, or business partners cannot get these special privileges by entering into a compact that is not consummated by a sex act.
Marriage, from the civil standpoint, is a privilege, restricted by various societal boundaries, including the natural one that it applies only to two persons of opposite sex. Expanding the realm of marriage to same-sex couples explodes the natural boundary – and after that, what kind of boundary could be logically defined? And if marriage can mean anything, it really means nothing.
We can already see that granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples is immediately followed by activist demands to force everyone to celebrate same-sex activity as normal, healthy and moral. This new “right” abrogates everyone else’s rights to freedom of religion, speech and association. The “rainbow” regime is uniformly lavender. It is a radical social experiment imposed on all without consent. The certain result is chaos.