This is part 8 of 8 of my series on marriage, based on Girgis’ What is Marriage? Marriage is a comprehensive union. The state has excellent reasons to recognize it and enact the correct view of it. These reasons are not rooted in some obscure ideology or private interest, but variously and deeply in human nature and the common good of all society, which reason and experience reveal. These have been the themes of this series.
Many same-sex attracted men and women agree with this conclusion. Some do so because they object to casting same-sex unions in a mold designed for husbands and wives, but others cite reasons identical to or much like ones that have been offered in this series. Here is a link to one such, here is another and here is a third. One might fear that whatever gains the conjugal view wins for the many, it wins at a cruel cost for the few. This objection states that traditional marriage law harms the personal fulfillment, the practical interests, and the social standing of same-sex-attracted people.
Practical interests: a civil union or other policy that granted legal benefits to any two adults upon request would receive no objection from the conjugal marriage view. People can normally obtain these benefits privately, for example, through power of attorney. This approach would actually be more effective. It would be available to same-sex partners, and would offer no rival definition of marriage, or cause the harm of policies that do, as it would not limit benefits to relationships presumed to be sexual.
Personal fulfillment and social standing: please note that however the marriage debate is resolved, two men or two women will be free to live together, with or without a sexual relationship or a wedding ceremony. Bigamists will still go to prison. The same-sex marriage debate is not about anyone’s private behavior, but about legal recognition. The decision to honor conjugal marriage bans nothing. But neither does it discourage companionship, as the revisionist view does. Not recognizing certain relationships as marriages will not make people lonelier unless we embrace the revisionist idea that emotional intimacy is what sets marriage apart–which is not true.
Let us not miss the spirit of this objection, however. What about dignitary harm? There is no denying the long and tragic history of cruelty and discrimination toward people attracted to their own sex. A revisionist might ask: even if traditional marriage laws aren’t unjust, might changing the definition of marriage protect vulnerable people against mistreatment? I’d respond by saying that I am not convinced at all that people motivated by hatred would be moved by changes in marriage law. They will continue to hate regardless.
A relationship may be of the greatest worth without calling for state recognition–especially if recognizing it would have harmful side effects. People rightly take delight in the public knowledge of their bonds in all kinds of relationships. Yet no one proposes to make friendships, for example recognized by law. Legal recognition only makes sense when something needs regulation, and can only regulate relationships with a definite structure. As has been shown, the only romantic bond that meets this criterion is marriage–conjugal marriage.
Please do not mistakenly assume that the conjugal view is concerned with targeting same-sex relationships. It is the redefinition of marriage that is concerning. What I wish to avoid is the harm this does to the common good. In the first and last analysis, what I have debated–and what I have defended–is marriage. There is no such thing as a neutral marriage policy. Settling other policies is also controversial: abortion, affirmative action, assisted suicide, capital punishment, etc. That doesn’t mean the state needs to keep silent on these issues. Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband and wife really serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society.
There is one final point to make, addressing full disclosure and transparency. Here I do not speak for anyone else. The reason I have spent amount of time and work I have on this series is to explicate in as clear and cogent a fashion as I can the reasons I support the conjugal view. Their essay is the best way I’ve yet found to express it, however it is not complete. I have only thus far considered implications through a secular lens: the law. However, as those who have followed my blog know, I am also a spiritual and religious person. I want it clear that the genesis and root of my belief is that marriage is not the product of the human mind. It is not something that two people or a community simply “came up with” somewhere back in the misty dawn of human civilization. Rather it was given by God himself, first to Adam and Eve and subsequently to the whole human race.
As God has given this gift of marriage, and indeed His first commandment to Adam and Eve was to “multiply and replenish the Earth,” He is the only one who can set the terms of what marriage is. No other being has that right, and God has not changed His definition of marriage. To deviate from it is to at best dilute these goods, and at worst to pervert them to the degeneration of society. Marriage is what it is, and man does not have the power to alter it or legislate to modify it, any more than he can alter the laws of gravity. It is not my intention to give offense to any, simply to be as clear as I can in presenting my view.
You wrote – “His first commandment to Adam and Eve was to “multiply and replenish the Earth”. Wasn’t this primarily because the earth needed to be populated? I’m having trouble dealing with this now because I feel like if God wanted me to procreate he would have sent me a husband by now. And I certainly don’t want to make a baby outside of His will since I’m not married. Lol!
Can “multiply” mean something else? Like maybe we can “multiply” our talents or help others who have multiplied. Just a thought….
This commandment was given for a few reasons, but it has never been rescinded and it was referring to having children according to my beliefs. Now as a single 38-year old guy myself, I hear what you’re saying because I’ve been looking for a wife for quite a while now. As families are a part of God’s plan though, I believe everyone who desires it will be given the chance to be married and have a family, either in this life or the next. So I’m still holding out hope!