From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 10

Under the U.S Constitution as written and for more than a century interpreted, the definition of marriage and family was simply none of the federal government’s constitutional business.  The limited scope of the federal government was described by James Madison: "In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general [i.e., federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."  It was understood that local communities should be able to make and administer laws for interpersonal relationships as the people in each community desired.

We looked last week at how the essential nature of old-fashioned marriage—the traditional, uncompromising, no-fingers crossed, for better or worse commitment to the well-being of a particular person of the opposite sex—provides two very important benefits to the state: (1) the state benefits from more people being born to provide workers, consumers, soldiers, teachers, etc., and (2) the state benefits if we become better humans, a natural consequence of such a marriage.  Now let’s look at the other side of the coin: what does the state lose when the family structure does not fit this traditional mold?

Imagine that decades of studies and analysis had established the following to be true of houses painted blue:

• Children living in blue houses consistently have lower grades than children in houses of other colors.
• Children living in blue houses are rated by their peers as being less pleasant to be around than children in houses of other colors.
• In any given year, teenagers living in blue houses are three times more likely to need psychological help than teenagers in houses of other colors.
• Children living in blue houses have more psychological problems than children who lost a parent to death.
• Children living in blue houses are at greater risk to experience injury, asthma, headaches and speech defects than children in houses of other colors.
• Children living in blue houses are at greater risk to experience injury, asthma, headaches and speech defects than children in houses of other colors
• After a house is painted blue, children in that house are fifty percent more likely to develop health problems.
• Children in houses of other colors are 20% to 35% more physically healthy than those living in blue houses.

There is another alarming trend in house paint.  Research has shown that medical, psychological, and relational pathology within gray homes is more prevalent than in the general population. An objective synthesis of the clinical and research literature derived from hundreds of sources revealed the following scientific findings:

• More than one-third of the people in gray houses are substance abusers.
• Forty percent of adolescents in gray houses report suicidal histories.
• People in gray houses are more likely than those in other homes to have mental health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety.
• Relationships in gray houses are more violent than those in other houses.
• Despite knowing the risks of AIDS, people in gray homes repeatedly and pathologically continue to engage in unsafe sex practices.
• People in gray houses represent the highest number of sexually transmitted diseases.
• Some of these problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions occur in gray homes at about three times the prevalence in other homes.

Until about 60 years ago, the law made it very hard to paint your house blue. Now, about 50% of homes with children in them are painted blue.  And as you might imagine, gray houses were absolutely outlawed…until 50 years ago.  Laws against painting your house gray started being relaxed in some parts of the country in 1962.  Since that time and in various states where such laws still existed, various state courts and even the Supreme Court of the U.S. have ruled that it is against the law to have laws against painting your house gray!

Alright, enough with the analogies. Blue houses are broken homes or single parent homes.  Divorce used to be fairly rare, frowned upon, and legally difficult to obtain; the law took marriage vows seriously and held people to them unless one of the parties had really gone bad. Gray houses are homosexual people and behavior. Here are some of the sources:

http://worldvillage.com/10-shocking-statistics-about-children-and-divorce

David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197.

“Shuttle Diplomacy,” Psychology Today, July/August 1993, p. 15.

Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1.

James E. Phelan, MSW, Neil Whitehead, Ph.D. and Philip M. Sutton, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Scientific Advisory Committee, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Claims on Homosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality, 1 (2009): 1-128.

The following findings didn’t precisely fit my blue house gray house analogies, but are additional facts (a little older data, but poignant) also worth noting:

There is no substitute for mom and dad: “Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up single parent or no-parent situations.” Beck, Allen, Survey of Youth in Custody 1987

Biological connection with both parents (impossible in homosexual couples) matters: “Step-parenthood per se remains the single most powerful risk factor for child abuse that has yet been identified.” (Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, Homicide, p. 87-88)

All sorts of laws are enacted every year with “it’s for the children” as justification, so why have we eliminated laws that protected children from the substantially increased “blue” and “gray” risks described above?

These facts make good old-fashioned, man and woman, committed for life marriage the most important thing the state could do “for the children!”

One can argue about details.  Politically-motivated research is being pursued full-force these days to try to explain away the above, unsuccessfully.  One piece claims that [s]ame-sex couples are just as good at raising well-adjusted, healthy kids as heterosexual couples according a new study published in the February issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.” The study says that “they looked everywhere” and “there is no research” to support the belief “that children need both a mother and a father to do well.” Not sure what sort of research they were looking for, because they apparently missed all of what I cited. (Maybe they didn’t have internet access.)

Why have these laws changed in a direction that places children at risk? Human nature is still a powerful thing.  We want what we want, and we want it now, and we don’t really care who it affects.  The current and future state of gay rights started in blue houses, not gray houses.  "The theory that everything is good had become an orgy of everything that was bad." G.K. Chesterton

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 8

[Another reminder to those just joining me: welcome…and this series would be best understood if you read them in order.]

For anyone who thinks that the federal government must step in and stop state and local governments from placing restrictions on homosexual behavior, like the federal government had to in the matter of slavery, I trust we laid that fallacy to rest last week.  Homosexuals have never been denied access to the democratic process.  They have always had an equal say at the lawmaking table of democracy, something that was denied people of color in southern states until the federal government stepped in and overruled their “states rights” on the matter.

“So if discrimination (and slavery) based on skin color was wrong, why is discrimination (legally imposed restriction on activities of a group of people) on the basis of sexual orientation justifiable?” someone asks.  Homosexual behavior, unlike skin color, is not a benign trait.  It does affect the person who is choosing that lifestyle.  It does limit them.  It exposes them to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from. It affects people around them.

We could start from the Bible, and ask, “what does God say about homosexual behavior.” Others have documented the biblical position. It would appear that God declares it sinful, and prescribed punishment of stoning in the Old Testament.  I believe the Bible calls homosexual behavior wrong, something to be abstained from…like a long list of other “sins.” I am not going to make the case here.  Nor should any politician.

If the only basis for your political position is your religious beliefs, whether based on the Bible or otherwise, you will lose the political debate. In public policy—politics and lawmaking—we need to be able to make our case for or against law without using the Bible as a primary source.  (Unless you want to impose a theocracy, something that should frighten us, since there would still be humans determining what God supposedly permits and proscribes.)  In public policy matters, it might be framed this way: “God might say homosexual behavior is wrong, but can you prove it by any other means?”

A Christian might balk: “Shouldn’t God’s word be enough?” One can look at God’s word and say, “Since God said it, it must be true and right.” But some of us like to understand further, so we ask with an open heart and mind, “Why do you suppose God said that? Is He simply arbitrary in what He demands…or is what He said based on what He knows about how we are made?  If He knows how we are made, then He knows what works and doesn’t given the nature of mankind.”  Just like the designer of a complex machine knows its capabilities, and knows what should not be attempted. Reminds me of the crazy guys who try to run snowmobiles as far across an unfrozen pond as possible. Despite their best efforts and intentions, the snowmobiles always sink. Duh! Snowmobiles are not made for water and attempts to use them that way inevitably fail.

So when thinking about imposing public policy that happens to coincide with your Christian beliefs, ask, “if I had not read it in the Bible first, might observation of the world around me have led to the same conclusion?” I find that when I try to understand God’s viewpoint, the world around me makes more sense.  Put another way, what I observe in the world around me seems to confirm what I read in the Bible.  So let’s see what simple observation and social studies might suggest about homosexual behavior. It would take a book instead of a blog post to fully develop this issue, but here is my summary version!

Marriage—one man to one woman, lifelong commitment—is a unique human relationship and has always been held in esteem, and should continue to be.  Why?

First, marriage is by design a procreative union.  There is no natural means of perpetuating the human species except by man and woman intimately joining their bodies. But for this intimate sharing, there would be no more humans.  We are physically designed for this. This is an obvious difference from homosexual behavior, no matter whether such behavior is called marriage, civil unions, shacking up, sin or a felony.

Second, men and women are different. (Earth-shattering revelation there, I know.) Neither is superior or more valuable or more important. Neither can continue the species without the other.  We can argue about exceptional men who can be womanly, and exceptional women who can be manly, but the fact that they are exceptions solidifies the fact that there is a general rule. And our differences complement each other.

Men are bigger and stronger, more one-track-minded, do not live as long, are more callous (less emotional/empathetic/sensitive), have a more powerful sexual drive. They are better suited for heavier manual labor and for the protective role. Women are more petite, better at multi-tasking, live longer, are more sensitive and empathetic, tuned in to relationships and feelings of themselves and others, more intuitive, and less impulsive. They are better suited for nurturing, caring for children, teaching, and are exclusively designed for feeding their baby.  They make better homemakers. Which reminds me what C.S. Lewis said: “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only - and that is to support the ultimate career.” After all, the home is where children are born, nurtured, taught how to live, and prepared to eventually replace their parents in civilization.

The fact that we are so different creates the possibility of a very special relationship. Among many more profound things, it has been said that a wife civilizes a husband, and that a husband strengthens a wife. Together we each become something that we cannot be alone, and something we cannot be with another person of the same gender.

People become better people when we do not allow our physical instincts to master us, but rather control those appetites and look out for the interests of others. Read the scripture—start with the Golden Rule—or look at yourself and those around you for the source on that statement! We know it is true. Laws are made with this in mind, such as laws against drug use. We know that some substances obviously tend to overwhelm a person’s better judgment and cause them to degenerate to their lowest animal instincts. Some activities are against the law not just because you can hurt others, but because you can hurt yourself. Such laws recognize that the physical desire for a rush of adrenalin or hormones overpowers sound judgment.

In old-fashioned marriage—wherein each spouse is vowing from their heart of hearts, “for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part, I am going to give myself to you and be everything I can be to you, and for you, to be all you could hope for in a life companion”—we publicly commit ourselves to the well-being of another person, and particularly, to one human who is biologically our complimentary opposite.  We also commit to a relationship from which creation of new people is a natural result, and to the responsibility that goes with bringing babies into the world. If you go into marriage with this selfless commitment pre-eminent and you choose your spouse from among people with similar core values, you can reasonably expect that your spouse has the same intentions toward you.

My wife says marriage is perhaps the factor in life that has most helped her become more Christ-like: dying to self, getting along with others, serving.  At first that didn’t seem flattering, but on reflection, I have to say the same thing.  Of, course each of us is thinking of very different ways we had to change. But lest this be misconstrued, our marriage also provides greatest satisfaction and happiness on earth of anything I can imagine or have ever tried. (Oh, she says to say the same thing for her!)  And to the extent it has called upon me to be selfless and giving, it has been exceedingly worth it!  Not unlike giving ourselves to God, who repays a hundredfold.

One aspect of this is the differences between men and women in the sexual drive.  I hope this doesn't get too personal. In the Old Testament it is recorded that God told various ones to “be fruitful and multiply.” Whether those commands were literal or figurative, the natural sexual desires placed in men could be interpreted as God’s “command” to procreate: “I want more people to be born!” Following that drive without discipline turns men into animals.  But a man is shaped into a better creature when his love and consideration of the wife to whose care and happiness he is committed confines and restrains these potent instincts. He becomes a more noble person, a more Christ-like human, more understanding of others. On the other side, the wife who loves her husband will give up her own preferences at times, too, and is shaped into a more loving, selfless, sacrificial human being.  Interestingly, the female hormones tend to guide sexual intimacy toward the time of greatest fertility. Hmmm, seems like our Designer really had something in mind here! 

This sexual tension, particularly that compromising nature of it that forces each party to frequently die to their desires and truly love their spouse will not work this way in a same-sex relationship.  Not that two selfish men or two selfish women won’t still disagree about details, because they will, especially if each is in it for what he or she can get.  But the inherent difference between men (microwaves) and women (crock pots) just won’t be there to shape our respective natures!

I can’t leave this topic without agreeing in part with the most critical comment I got as I started this series.  Today’s marriages—heterosexual variety—seem to rarely have the necessary foundation of selflessness.  I hear that some marriage vows now commit to the relationship, “so long as you make me happy.” That sort of vow shouldn’t even qualify as marriage.  This attitude toward marriage has denigrated it to something it never was or should be: a government-sponsored pleasure trip which, when it no longer pleases, you trade in for the next available ticket.  Heterosexual marriage should not be so cheap, and public policy that permits it should be changed. 

Laws cheapening marriage to accommodate the selfish desires of uncommitted heterosexuals has paved the way for ‘gay marriage.’ Easy divorce and ‘it’s all about my happiness’ thinking in marriage policy provides the basis for the arguments the homosexuals are making.  It’s their turn to demand what they want: their own government sponsorship of roughly this same cheapened, disposable, pleasure-trip called ‘marriage.’

Out of time again, so let me conclude with this. Marriage—the traditional, uncompromising, no-fingers crossed, for better or worse commitment to the well-being of a person of the opposite gender—provides two very important benefits to the state:

1. The state benefits if more people are born.  We will tackle that one a bit more in a future post.
2. The state benefits if we become better people: better citizens, better soldiers, better workers, better neighbors, better parents.

Marriage has been an asset to the state, so the state gave it honor.  Next time I will be looking at some of the negative social implications of non-marriage, including homosexual relationships and broken marriages.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 7

I promised to compare and contrast homosexual rights to slavery in this post, and I will below.  The following is too pertinent to pass up, and it is relevant to all we have been blogging about.

As all readers know, the Supreme Court is now deciding the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the most current and glaring example of Congress legislating morality, something our Founders clearly believed, and said in the Constitution, it should never do. If you think that the current politicians—at least liberals—think the Constitution limits the legislative power of Congress, you are dreaming. They don’t! They think the Constitution is no longer relevant to their job. When asked over the past couple of years whether ObamaCare just might be unconstitutional, here is a sampling of their responses:

"[T]he federal government can do most anything in this country." - Rep. Pete Stark (CA)

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" - Rep. James Clyburn (SC)

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. ... It doesn't matter to me." - Rep. Phil Hare (IL)

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" - then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) acted simply incredulous that there could even be any question raised!

"Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no, there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you." - SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan, cheerleading ObamaCare from her rather conspicuous seat on the bench

This sort of politician has no comprehension of the central issue I have been blogging about, that is, that the Founders of this nation enshrined in our Constitution the principle that morality—how we treat one another—should never be legislated by the Federal government, and that such matters, if to be legislated at all, were reserved for local and state governments. ObamaCare is clearly an attempt to legislate morality: how individuals must interact with others.

OK, moving on as promised. How might one compare the treatment of homosexuality to the issue of slavery? My critic would suggest that despite the constitutional limitation on the Federal government in favor of states’ rights, the Federal government essentially rode into southern towns and overruled them on this issue. You might argue, and I would actually agree, that it was probably the right thing to do, to over-ride states' rights on the issue of slavery.  So why not on gay rights, too?

Restricting homosexual behavior is nothing like slavery. Let’s compare and contrast the two topics.

The essential wrong in slavery was denial of access to the democratic process. Even though in some areas blacks out-numbered whites, the rules for all people were made by the minority. That minority—whites who had made the rules—held the power structure of the communities and denied an entire group of people—blacks—any say in those rules. The 14^th Amendment redefined the rules in this way: every state in the union must acknowledge that all people are citizens and must be given a voice in the law-making process.  They must be given a seat at the table of democracy.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full access to the democratic process.  They happen to be a very small minority of the population by any measurement I know of, and therefore through the democratic process have generally been unable to enact policies favoring their behavior.  If this small minority is able to turn the laws to favor their ‘lifestyle’ and burden the rest of the people with all the consequences thereof, it would actually be closer to imposing slavery than to abolishing slavery.

In sections of our nation, slavery was lawful.  In other areas of the country it was not.  So if you were a free person, you could move to the part of the country that shared your moral values, i.e., presumably (since today we all see the evil of slavery!) where slavery was against the law. But the very nature of slavery kept some humans from being able to choose where they would live! Slavery prevented slaves leaving a community that infringed upon their liberty and moving to one that shared their values. Because a whole segment of society was being forced to remain where they had to work for nothing, even though in other parts of the country those same humans could enjoy freedom, the federal government (a higher authority than the states) had to intervene in order to free people to choose where they want to live.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full freedom of movement, freedom to travel, and freedom to associate with others who shared their views. If they do not like the values of the community in which they live—say they are in a state or county that still criminalizes their desired behavior—they can move.  That is (was) the beauty of Federalism: the federal government was to stay out of these issues and let ‘birds of a feather flock together’ so they could regulate interpersonal behavior for their own community. 

Admittedly, until 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the union.  I would suggest that this was a result of just how universal was the understanding that homosexual behavior was detrimental. Still, unlike slaves who were physically restrained from leaving, anyone who wants to engage in homosexual behavior is completely free to find another place of abode where community standards agree that it is acceptable.  They are also free to petition their government for change, speak their views, and associate with people of their choice.  As a result, they have created places like San Francisco.  Slaves had no such freedom to relocate to a community where they could be free.

Slavery was permitted in some states, but enough people within the democratic process had seen the evil thereof and outlawed it in many states.  Still, there was no universal, nationwide consensus in favor of nor against slavery. By contrast, when the democratic process was permitted to work, homosexual behavior was criminalized everywhere.  Everywhere.  No exceptions. So do you think that 100% of the country was comprised of unreasonable people on this issue?

Slavery was a total dehumanization of a group of people based on what Colin Powell (before he wimped out and bowed to political correctness in more recent years) referred to as a “benign” characteristic: the color of your skin. The color of your skin has no affect on other people, is not a determinate of IQ, does not make you better or worse at specific things. A person can be a great homemaker, statesmen, doctor, engineer, orator, leader, tradesman, truck-driver, astronaut, soldier, pilot or whatever else they choose to be, and their skin color is irrelevant.  Benign.  Of no effect.

Homosexual behavior is, on the other hand, action. Specifically, interaction with other people. It does affect other people.  It does affect you.  It does limit you.  It exposes you to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from.

Before I start working on answering the, ‘Oh yeah, how?’ to all of those, let’s dispense with a red herring.  We could get into a whole debate here about whether a person is ‘born gay’ or chooses that lifestyle.  For this post that does not matter.  No one can or should be sent to jail for their feelings or inclinations.  I don’t think anyone ever has been in this country, and if so it was a terrible injustice.  I have friends who seem, for men, rather effeminate.  Some remain unmarried.  But even if this is a characteristic with which they were born, they still choose whether to embrace the idea of homosexuality and act upon it; they choose whether to engage in homosexual sex.  Just like I, as a heterosexual male, had to choose whether to remain a virgin until marriage…and have to choose to maintain mastery of those desires even within marriage. 

Everyone is born with natural forces on our bodies that must be resisted.  The Apostle Paul wrote at length about the forces of the ‘flesh’—the physical body—and how we all face them, but yet have the choice whether to follow them or resist.  If we do not resist, we become enslaved by those forces, literally becoming mere animals. It can be the natural desire to eat, play video-games, thrill-seek, watch TV, surf the web, or just sleep in late. It can also be the natural sexual desire. These are natural forces that, but for a vigilant resistance, will enslave us.

Out of writing time for this week.  We’ll pick up here next time!