President Bush’s decision to draft legislation outlawing gay marriage has drawn predictable fire from homosexual activist groups. Supporters of the President’s policy have been surprisingly inarticulate, however, in giving reasons why the state should not permit gay marriage.

At first glance, the issue does not seem to be a very important one. How many homosexuals even want to get married? Surveys suggest: not very many. And the reason is fairly obvious—marriage could put a serious crimp in the promiscuous lifestyle of many male homosexuals.

Even so, gay activists have lined up behind the marriage cause, not only to collect health benefits and other legal advantages conferred by marriage, but also to gain full social recognition for homosexuality. This is the real significance of the gay marriage debate—it represents a campaign to break down moral resistance to the homosexual lifestyle.

Perhaps the most ingenious argument in favor of gay marriage has been offered by journalist Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan concedes that some elements of the gay male lifestyle, such as reckless promiscuity, endanger society as well as the lives of homosexuals who live this way. Sullivan argues, however, that it is social ostracism that marginalizes homosexuals, especially male homosexuals, and makes them behave in this manner. If gays are allowed to be part of mainstream society, engaging in its normal rituals like marriage, then Sullivan is confident that this outrageous element of gay culture would diminish. Sullivan’s argument can be condensed to the slogan “Marriage civilizes men.”

But Sullivan is wrong. Marriage doesn’t civilize men, women do. Ronald Reagan made this point many years ago. If not for women, he said, men would still be running around in animal skins and wielding clubs. Reagan’s point—that male nature needs to be tamed, and that the taming is done by women—seems borne out by experience. Untamed male nature can be witnessed in the lifestyle of gay men who have had hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners. Female nature is something quite different, and once again we see it in the gay community. Lesbians seem far more capable than gay men of sustaining long-term relationships.

“But why should we prevent people who love each other from getting married?” Here is the problem. Marriage is defined as the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other. This is the basic definition. Now let’s assume we revise the definition to permit gay marriage. What if a group of Mormons, joined by a group of Muslims; presses for the legalization of polygamy? The argument proceeds along the same lines: “I want to have four wives, because we all love each other.” And another man says, “Why shouldn’t I be able to marry my sister?” And yet others make more exotic claims: “I love my dog and my dog loves me.”

The point is that love is a desirable, but not sufficient, condition for marriage. Why, then, does society have these specific criteria? Why privilege this particular arrangement and grant it special legal status, including the social recognition and tax benefits that go with it? The reason is that marriage is the incubator of children. It is the only known mechanism for the healthy cultivation of the next generation. Bearing children is one area in which gay couples are inherently deficient. Of course gays can use artificial insemination or adopt. Studies show children raised by their father and mother in a traditional family structure fare better physically and emotionally.

Andrew Sullivan is not satisfied. He points out that some heterosexual couples don’t have children, yet society doesn’t prevent them from marrying. This is a bad argument that misunderstands the nature of social rules. Consider this: you have to be 16 years old to drive and 18 years old to vote. The reason for the rule is that driving and voting require a certain level of maturity. True, some adults don’t have such maturity, yet we don’t exclude them. True, some minors could probably drive and vote effectively, but we don’t let them. The point is that rules are general propositions based on a presumed connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired, even though the result may not always be favorable. And so it is with marriage.

The gay community has enjoyed significant recognition over the last two decades. Why, then, does their leadership insist upon hijacking cultural institutions such as the Boy Scouts and traditional marriage in order to gain credibility?

Click for a Printer Friendly Version