Changing law to authorize the marriage of homosexual people is not about equality nor about human rights; it is about the deconstruction of Judeo-Christian, sacramental marriage. It is intended to return control of human reproduction from religious individuals and their churches, to the state.
Human reproduction has included a public element since people first banded together in families and tribes. That has only expanded when the social side of human nature expanded into nations. Reproduction is fundamental to families and nations alike; it is their future. Unsurprisingly then, those responsible for families and nations assume an active interest in reproduction. Always.
Human biology burdens women with years of child rearing after a birth; human males find it easier to tiptoe away in search of another sexual conquest. Women have responded to that by making themselves more difficult targets and by lobbying governments (patriarchs, tribal chiefs, etc.) to create and enforce a contract between men and women: If you want your fun, you have to sign on for the duration of the result. Nearly all human societies arrived at some version of an enforceable marriage contract. Those that didn’t, usually didn’t last, either.
Many of the societies along this path did not see much wisdom in allowing young, inexperienced people to control their choices for marriage partners, often for excellent reasons. But as the marriage age rose, so did human desire for control of that choice. Eventually, in most Western societies, women married whom they would, protected by a publicly witnessed and legally enforceable contract buttressed by the sacramental weight added by the church. Instead of flitting from flower to flower, human males were forced by society and religion to stick around and help support and raise their progeny. Homosexuals, lacking progeny, were excluded from the contract.
That worked after a fashion but it left men rebellious and sometimes unreliable and it left women envious of the relative freedom of the men. People are like that. Female contraception (The Pill) blew it all out of the water. Women could now screw around as irresponsibly as men always had done, politically espousing convenience abortion and divorce to grease their way. Never mind that it also freed those men who could, to take up the sexual harassment patterns feeding today’s headlines. It also expanded the single parent families creating so much havoc among todays’ children.
Governments with a thought toward their futures often provided public benefits for parents, to encourage the production of future citizens. Non-parents were excluded. Opportunistic politicians seized upon this as some sort of inequality and convinced voters to make the marriage subsidies available to homosexual couples who could not reproduce in the name of equality.
The only reason for the original state and religious investment in marriage was and is the reproduction of the species. By spreading the benefits to include non-reproductive couples, those benefits have been diluted, reducing the motivation toward reproduction by those able to practice it. And this at a time when Western human fertility is declining. So too in Japan and China. And other places. Mostly, it appears to temporarily benefit those politicians advocating it and those homosexual married couples who adopt children. The social desirability of such parenting has not been established. In fairness, neither has any related negative factor, to our knowledge. However, there seems little doubt that the proliferation of single parent families resulting from divorce and the devaluation of marriage has reduced the contributions toward raising responsible citizens previously available from two-parent families. The resulting children seem evidence enough.
The Supreme Court is deciding whether a baker can decline to provide a gay wedding cake because his now legally archaic religious beliefs deny gay marriage. That is the media buzz, but it is really only the cover story. The underlying, inescapable reality is that, however the decision, it will mark the state’s assumption of the power to decide these issues, irrespective of any citizens or their churches. With that, the decision criteria will become political, not moral.