Mark Brumley remarks on the Prop 8 court decision

Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, left this comment on my post below about the court decision on Proposition 8. The remarks in quotes are from Judge Walker's decision:

"Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."

But when it comes to procreating children opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

Since it is generally better that children be raised by those who procreate them, and since only opposite sex couples can procreate children, and since it is in civil society's interest to foster and encourage children being procreated in stable unions, it makes sense that the state would recognize in law the unions of opposite sex couples and not recognize the unions of same-sex couples, which are at best analogous to friendships and therefore of little or no civil pertinence.

"Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

Sez who? And why, exactly, is it civilly pertinent that couples choose to live together, remain committed to one another and form a household based on their feelings about one another and support one another and any dependents?

It is arguable that for tax purposes mutual support of dependents should be relevant. But why should the state recognize (and therefore citizens of the state be compelled to accept) a couple's choice to live together? Why is there any more state interest in the matter than whether my neighbor and I are best friends? Should the state have to recognize my friendship with my neighbor?

It makes sense that the state would recognize the union of a man and a woman as marriage because men and women frequently form unions that result in the coming into existence of other human beings, who are the subject of rights and responsibilities, and who will have a part to play in perserving and fostering civil/political society.

It is generally better for children to know and be raised by those who have procreated them, and therefore better that those who procreate children live together in a stable union. Although not all people who engage in acts that frequently result in children wind up having children, enough do that it is worth treating the committed unions of opposite-sex couples as the same as the unions of opposite-sex couples in which children are procreated. Recognizing the former helps strengthen the stability of the latter.

Same-sex couples do not procreate children. Technologies may develop where human beings may be brought into existence from parts of some same-sex couples in ways akin to how objects are manufactured, but this is not procreation. It shall forever be the case that only opposite-sex couples can naturally bring other human beings into existence through sexual acts. Only opposite-sex couples can engage in intimate, personal acts of bodily union and in doing so procreate new human beings.

In some societies, same-sex couples are permitted to adopt children. This is at best less than ideal and at worse a form of abuse. Children have a right, all other things being equal, to be brought into existence and raised by their parents, who can naturally be only an opposite-sex couple. While there are exceptional circumstances where it would not be in the best interest of children to be raised by their procreational parents, these are relatively rare and do not justify a general policy of treating procreative, opposite-sex parents as if they are not different from non-procreative, same-sex couples.

If there are circumstances where adoption of a child by a same-sex couple is justified, these circumstances would have to be extremely grave and rare. But whether or not such circumstances exist, a same-sex couple does not by virtue of adopting children make itself equivalent to an opposite-sex couple, which can engage in the kind of actions and form the kind of union that by its nature is procreative. Opposite-sex unions are so fundamental and essential to society, including civil/political society, that they deserve and need to be specially recognized and encouraged.

By treating same-sex couples' unions as if they were identical or equivalent to opposite-sex couples' union, the state fails to give opposite-sex couples the recognition and support helpful to encouraging stable unions of those who procreate the next generation. By dubbing same-sex unions as "marriage", the state, in effect, imposes acceptance of same-sex couples' unions and actions as good and commendable, which is a private opinion many people reject.

Comments

[George Mayorga]

I disagree with your conclusions...God Bless you and God bless the faithful Gays and Lesbians who continue to endure the statements and actions of those who would see their inequality continue. Before God there is neither man nor woman.

[M. B.]

Regarding the use of "inferior" and "superior", I think we ought to be cautious about using the this language. The way pro-gay marriage advocates have been using these terms lately, I think they want us to say gay "marriage" is inferior. That way they can fit it into their narrative: "We used to think women were inferior, and we used to think blacks were inferior, but now we know they are equal. Let's not make the same bigoted mistake of labeling gay marriage as inferior."

Instead of accepting their equality-framed paradigm we need to consciously adopt and essentialist framework. Our point needs to be that these gay unions aren't an "inferior" form of marriage, but rather they simply aren't marriage at all.

(Not that I am disagreeing with Mark -- I just think we need to be aware of the way they are trying to manipulate our language.)

[Sawyer]

George, the first chapters of Genesis explicitly state that God made male and female, so you stand refuted in your claim that before God there is neither man nor woman. God MADE man and woman.

But I think you mean to refer to Galatians, that in Christ there is neither woman nor man. Paul does not mean that males and females are the same; he means that salvation through Christ is available to all irrespective of sex.

Sorry, you can't twist Scripture to support your flawed ideas about human nature, sexuality and marriage. Scripture clearly condemns homosexual acts as being contrary to God's will.

[Bryan]

Yes, George. God bless the faithful gays and lesbians who struggle just like the rest of us to live out lives of chastity despite living in a culture that sends a message that having sex is the most important thing you can do with your life and that if you are unable to have sex you are not equal to the rest of us.

[Francis Beckwith]

"Before God there is neither man nor woman."

So, Joseph could have been the Mother of God?

[Robert Miller]

The thing I think is missing is the recognition that we shouldn't have to be having this discussion at all.

A political entity and a culture that presume to legalize and normalize unnatural vice and to define marriage (according to whatever definition)need to be shut down, sine die.

Even to discuss this foulness, on any but terms of straightforward condemnation, is demeaning and an occasion of sin (of omission to condemn manifest evil out of misbegotten "charity" for sinners).

[Brian J. Schuettler]

A political entity and a culture that presume to legalize and normalize unnatural vice and to define marriage (according to whatever definition)need to be shut down, sine die.

AMEN

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

As president Reagan would have said: Here we go again...

The inalienable right a U.S. citizen has of casting a vote has been thwarted by an unti-american judge who loves more the progressive creed than the democratic system we uphold. We see how the DOJ usurps rights, manipulates adjudication and makes a mockery of our Constitution.

The glimmer of hope exhibited by americans, nauseated by the slough among conservatives and liberals, in the Tea Party groups, shows too well how tired we are of the status quo.

Americans should not let this unexpected, unparalleled opportunity go to waste.

[Mark Brumley]

"Before God there is neither man nor woman"

But George, as Sawyer notes above: "In the image of God he created him; male and female he create them" (Gen 1:27).

MB, I agree, when the issue is whether "same-sex marriage" is inferior to "opposite-sex" marriage. There is no such thing as "same-sex marriage" and there is no basis for comparison with "opposite-sex" marriages, i.e., marriages. However, the issue is "same-sex unions" vs. "opposite-sex unions". These can be compared. And when it comes to procreation, same-sex unions fail altogether. That was the point.

I understand the argument about equality rhetoric. But I think we can and should attack the factually erroneous claim that same-sex unions are equal to opposite-sex unions on the matter of applicability of the category "marriage". Women and men are equal; opposite-sex and same-sex unions are not.

The civil interest in marriage is primarily to strengthen unions in which procreation may occur. There are some opposite-sex unions in which, due to age or physical defect, procreation cannot occur, but these otherwise closely resemble those opposite-sex unions in which procreation can occur. Civilly privileging those nonprocreative opposite-sex unions by allowing them to be recognized as marriage helps foster the civil prestige of marriage and has the net effect of encouraging couples who engage in procreative kinds of acts to marry. Civil recognition of same-sex union does not have this effect; it has the opposite effect of confusing the state's purposes in recognizing in law the union known as marriage and creating ersatz familial situations that, on balance, are harmful to the interests of adopted children.

[Redfeather]

Manuel,

Please, in the discussion of the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, please do not invoke anything by Ronald Reagan. That man did more to corrode marriage in America than anyone before or since. It is he who signed legislation for "no fault" divorce largely for selfish and vindictive reasons...he felt he was wronged by Jane Wyman in the crack up of their marriage. The rest of the nation followed suit and look at where we stand now--on the verge of judicial activist legislation to sanction marriage between homosexuals.

[Jeffery]

Mr. Brumley, is this the best you can do? This isn't a question about who can pop out the most babies. By the way, my dad's side of the family is from Arkansas. They are very fertile Southern Baptists who have one kid after the other, only to be raised in poverty and even sometimes abuse. You dare to say these kids are better off in that situation than they would be if they were adopted by a same sex couple?

Marriage equality isn't a religious issue. It's a civil rights issue, as the judge rightly noted.

As a former Catholic, I'm disturbed to see how Catholicism has gotten caught up in the Right-Wing, Republican-Equals-Kingdom-of-God frenzy that has infected and disfigured American Evangelicalism. If that's the heart of the Gospel message, then count me out. Peace.

[Mark Brumley]

Jeffery, if you're trying to make an argument, rather than an unsubstantiated set of assertions, then I respectfully ask you to try again.

If you're trying to be glib, then my response is: "No, it's not the 'best' I can do. I could easily do better. In this instance, I am a conservationist and I have exerted only so much energy as necessary to refute the other side. I could do more but why overdo it? What I did was sufficient to refute the same-sex marriage case."

That's the kind of glib answer a glib statement such as yours warrants. Can we move beyond glibness?

Are you really comfortable posing the alternatives of either letting a child live in poverty, with his own parents, or having him be adopted by a gay couple? Is that the the best you can do? Really?

You write that "marriage equality" isn't a religious issue. Is this a response to something I said? I replied to a proponent of same-sex marriage's claim that before God there is neither man nor woman. He brought in religion, not me. If there is a religious dimension to this, it is likely to be interference with the religious freedom of those religions--the majority--who do not favor same-sex marriage but who may wind up the subject of state sanctions if certain proponents of same-sex marriage have their way.

You blithely assert that "marriage equality" is a civil rights issue. Well, saying it is so doesn't make it so. You say it is and I say it's not. Make your case. Show us why there should be a civil right to have the union of same-sex people recognized as marriage by the state. Merely combining the words "marriage" and "equality" doesn't prove that same-sex people's decisions to commit themselves to one another should be recognized as "marriage" by the state.

And while you are at it tell me why there should be no civil right to polgamy.

Catholicism's support for marriage is hardly "Republican" or "Right-Wing". If you, as a former Catholic, think that "Catholicism has gotten caught up in the Right-Wing, Republican-Equals-Kingdom-of-God frenzy that has infected and disfigured American Evangelicalism", then perhaps you should think more carefully about things and ask yourself whether something else besides facts and reason is affecting your perception and leading you to such unfounded conclusions. There are plenty of people who are Catholics who are not Republicans or "right wing" who reject same-sex marriage.

[M. B.]

Agreed, Mark, agreed. My concern with language is motivated by the fact that I know too many "fence-sitters" who are uncomfortable with gay marriage but don't want to be judgmental. Helping them to understand what's really going on, rhetoric aside, is important. Also, the gay lobby is really hammering this "equality" mantra without ever stopping to consider the fact that every gay man and woman is already absolutely equal to every heterosexual man and woman -- they are all equally free to marry an unmarried person of the opposite sex of an appropriate age who consents. I'd like to stop their "equality! equality!" chant for the lie that it is.

"Civilly privileging those nonprocreative opposite-sex unions by allowing them to be recognized as marriage helps foster the civil prestige of marriage and has the net effect of encouraging couples who engage in procreative kinds of acts to marry."

I saw an argument over on the "What's Wrong With the World" blog that addressed this very point. The argument pointed out that just as we as a society offer certain benefits to military veterans, regardless of whether they ever marched on a battlefield. We do this because we recognize the social benefit of military service. Every soldier (qua soldier) is at least potentially a battlefield soldier, regardless of what his service actually entails. A civilian's service may in fact be very beneficial to society in some other way, and even more beneficial than a certain given soldier's, but that does not mean the civilian is entitled to military benefits.

Marriage is something like that. A male-female union, qua male-female, is ordered toward procreation in a way that a same-sex union is not. As such we privilege it. As a society, we do (and should) privilege those unions which are essentially capable of procreation, regardless of whether some accidental thing prevents such procreation. To point out the many non-procreative male-female unions, as so many gay-marriage proponents do, does nothing to change the fact that the male-female union is essentially procreatively ordered.

[Mark Brumley]

MB, good points.

[Achilles]

WOW! Excellent conversation!
"Fecerunt itaque civitates duas amores duo,
terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei, caelestem vero amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui." St. Augustine

When Truth is the issue, though consensus is nice, really it is a matter of discovery or not.