Virginia: Same-sex marriage?

October 1, 2006 1:24 am

TO PARAPHRASE G.K. Chester- ton, before you take down a fence you'd better pause and figure out why it was put there to begin with. In Europe and America--including Virginia--people are being asked to remove the fence that has, for thousands of years, defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Is this a discriminatory barrier that needs to be torn down or a protective boundary that should be reinforced?

The question is timely. This November, voters will be asked to give thumbs up or down on an amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage. Further, they will choose between two senatorial candidates with divergent views on the subject.

Although rhetoric on the subject can be heated, changing the legal definition of marriage is an issue that needs to be reasoned out in the marketplace of ideas. And to satisfy letter-writer Ron Miller of King George ["Marriage amendment debate isn't about values," Sept. 14], I will express my views without resorting to religious argument.

The most basic function of government is to preserve the nation. Preservation of the nation requires healthy children who become productive citizens in the next generation. And those children are best produced in homes where their biological mother and a father are married to each other. Allowing gay marriage would further weaken this already struggling institution.

Look at the facts. Eighty percent of child poverty is in broken or never-married families. Children of parents who do not get married and stay married are more likely to live in poverty, to dabble in substance abuse later in life, to fail in school, to be incarcerated, and to experience early unwed pregnancy. Today, nearly one-third of children are born outside of marriage and over half will spend all or part of their childhood without both of their biological parents.

Some argue that with heterosexual marriage in such a mess, maybe allowing stable gay couples to marry would be an improvement. The Dutch redefined marriage in 2001--but rather than strengthening the family by broadening its definition, this action has contributed to its decline. Disconnecting marriage from parenthood has made marriage seem irrelevant to the Dutch; concurrently providing for easy ways out has led to a very high divorce rate. The traditional family--mom, dad, and their kids--is now a rarity in the Netherlands.

The French have legalized "civil solidarity pacts," which confer many of the same benefits as marriage. But because they are easy to get into and out of, these pacts are increasingly used by heterosexual couples. Providing a flimsy alternative to marriage has hurt--not helped--the family.

In 2004, the Witherspoon Institute (a non-religious organization) of Princeton, N.J., brought together academicians to study marriage in America. The findings have been released in a book called "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles." To date, 70 scholars with expertise in fields from sociology to psychology to law have become signatories to the findings. Noting that "marriage protects children, men, and women, and the common good," the scholars say that "the health of marriage is particularly important in a free society which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly. "

The report views with alarm the fact that the concept of "family" is under attack by cultural forces. It outlines four main threats: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.

It notes that "same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a father and a mother." It says, "Men and women bring different strengths to the parenting enterprise," differences that are rooted in biology.

"While there are surely many unknowns," the report says, "what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened."

Of course, there are exceptions to every generality. I am sure some gay couples could surpass some traditional families in the health and well-being of their children, just as some single moms do an excellent job on their own. But even Hillary Clinton notes that " every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal, both to meet the needs of most children and to serve as the model for other adults who are raising children in difficult settings."

The best way to create and preserve that critical mass is to have public policy which supports and stabilizes traditional marriage. So maybe it's not just gay marriage we need to reject. Maybe we need to reconsider no-fault divorce as well. We certainly need to promote fathering and discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing.

If we endorse gay marriage, the slope will get slipperier. George Dent in "The Journal of Law and Politics" points out that "once same-sex marriage is affirmed, other forms of 'marriage' will follow," including polygamy, endogamy (marriage between blood relatives) and perhaps even child marriage. Far out? No. The ACLU's policy book states it "believes the criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage [polygamy] violate constitutional protections for freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults."

But does government have a right to intrude on personal choices like who a person can marry? Like most conservatives, I think that government is best which governs least. But preserving the nation is a legitimate function of government. And families--the basic building block of culture--do best when children are raised in a home with their married mother and father.

Does this make me a bigot? No. There's a difference between accepting and respecting individuals and their right to make choices, and institutionalizing these choices through policy. For the future of this nation, traditional marriage is best. Indeed, the fence has a purpose. Leave it up.

LINDA J. WHITE is an editorial writer and columnist for The Free Lance-Star.