In the last few posts I have attempted to illustrate that redefining marriage would have significant impact on the church in future, that homosexuality, as it exists in the West, has never been successfully normalized, that attempting to normalize homosexual marriage (which is only one step in normalizing homosexuality) requires significant cultural alteration leading to major social problems, and that homosexuals are not in fact precluded from any marital rights as they exist today. The point in the last post, taken in conjunction with the other posts, was to demonstrate that an honest appraisal of the situation can only lead us to conclude that those who wish to allow for homosexual marriages are doing so as an attempt to normalize homosexuality in all forms in the culture, not in response to legal injustices. But, in laying out the evidences for these points, in my last post I did indicate that homosexuals are not enjoying all the privileges of married couples in the United States. Here I intend to ask the question of whether or not homosexuals should be given access to these privileges. More precisely I intend to demonstrate that this question, "Should homosexuals be given access to the benefits married couples have today?" is best answered with the statement: "The situation as it exists today ought not be, and should be changed leading to greater justice for all people."
The situation as it exists today is that married couples have access to benefits and privileges that the average person does not have. In order to lay out some proper boundaries I think it is important that we admit that marriage, as an institution, deserves special legal and social protection. The reason marriage deserves special legal and social protection is because it is essential to the formation of a healthy society. Marriage, as it should be, allows for the easy transference of property, a healthy and safe environment for the raising of children, and is the institution that has the greatest impact on the moral and intellectual health of society (in the form of parental influence on children). I think these points are self evident, anyone who disagrees can go live in any inner city neighborhood where large numbers of children are born out-of-wedlock and grow up in single mother houses with little family support to see their error. (Yes, it is possible for a single mother to effectively raise children, but again we are looking at the situation as experienced by most people in this situation, in which we see marked increases in illiteracy, drug use, crime, and violence.)
So, marriage deserves protection from a purely social perspective. But, what about the benefits of marriage? Should those benefits be given to others? My answer to this is somewhat more ambiguous, because I do not think many of the benefits that exist and are given to marriage today should exist in the first place. Allow me to give some examples.
Social Security provides spouses with financial benefits based purely on marital status. However, I maintain the question should be raised as to whether the government should be involved in programs such as Social Security at all. Think of it this way: if the government was not involved in Social Security, and individuals were able to keep the portion of their pay that goes to the government to pay for it, then they would be able to determine who to support with that money. If individuals were able to make the choice on their own, and the question of whether the government should recognize homosexual couples claims to spousal benefits would be completely moot. Government interference into private concerns, such as providing for life in old age, creates additional complications in which the government must always be granting one group privileges which are not enjoyed by others.
The same complaint can be raised against government involvement in almost every social program. When government gets involved the state must make the decision of what will be done with the resources available. By making the state responsible we create a situation where inequality is almost unavoidable. For instance: if a polygamous group decided that they wanted to be able to have full social benefits for their children, as those benefits are enjoyed by others, then they would be able to claim that the government has discriminated against them by not allowing those benefits. You may argue that society has a right to discriminate in that way, but the question can be raised why is it right to discriminate against them and not homosexuals? To argue that polygamy inherently harms children could be countered by polygamists claiming that polygamy has always had a second class status in the United States, and that it is this second class status that has constantly caused harm to children.
My point in making this argument is only that government involvement is what creates the current discriminatory claims that homosexuals raise. Many of the activities that government is currently involved in, including welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, and other social programs were at one time unnecessary in society. Prior to the advent of these programs some 70 years ago families were able to survive and even thrive in America, so, as the current form and reach of these programs is even more recent than that, why would it be impossible for individuals to survive again without those programs? If the government were to remove itself from attempting to care for individuals, then it would return personal responsibility for actions to individuals, and would encourage greater social awareness in society as a whole as people would have to actively help others in times of need. As it stands America is one of the most generous countries when it comes to aiding others, why should we assume that Americans would not help the needy, poor, and disabled in their midst if the government made it the responsibility of individuals? (This tendency toward generosity and pity is, I think any honest person would have to admit, one of the greatest influences Christianity has had on the American psyche throughout the years.) More than that, consider the amount of aid already given by churches throughout America. Do we think that churches would not be able to handle the needs that would arise if government were to remit the resources used on social programs back to individuals? (I know, not all of those resources would go to churches, because not everyone would want to give to churches. But, think of what more churches would be able to do with the increased funds that would be available to assist those in need, especially considering what they are able to do with the funds they have now.)
The best course of action for those complaining of inequality in government treatment of homosexual relationships and marriages is to agitate for less government involvement in all areas of day-to-day life, so that there would be less inequality between married couples and cohabiting groups of any kind. That does not mean the government must entirely abandon its interest in protecting marriage though. Nor does this mean that Americans must necessarily see any moral equivalency between different kinds of relationships. Instead, less government involvement would mean that private relationships would be allowed to remain largely private. If homosexual activists wish to prove that homosexual unions are just as good as marriages, in terms of mental, social, and physical well being, then this would give them an excellent opportunity to prove it, as they could enjoy more freedom from officially sanctioned bias of all kinds, and build strong public support for full equality in the future. (Or, this would protect society from sanctioning homosexual unions if future evidence demonstrates that homosexuality should not be encouraged in the populace.)
In conclusion, the social benefits of marriage are hard to over exaggerate. So in those areas in which government will necessarily be involved, such as taxation and property law, there should still remain incentive for couples to marry. However, if government were to become more limited and allow for greater personal freedom and responsibility in all areas of life, it would promote greater equality among the nation as a whole, including between marriages and homosexual relationships. At the same time this would largely address the complaints of those advocating for homosexual marriage and would allow for the reduced benefits of marriage to be examined so as to determine whether there are other relationships that should enjoy them. Marriage as an institution in the West has been weakened over the last 40-50 years, as can be seen from data in both the United States and Europe, and this has not led to a better society, but has instead given rise to a various number of problems. To redefine marriage now, so as to include homosexuals, will not result in stronger marriages or a more equal society, but will be a continued weakening of the single most important cultural institution there is.
No comments:
Post a Comment