The answer at first glance is that it wouldnt, at least not in
individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for
everyone?

It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the
power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few
individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social
trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social
sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.

Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were
relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a
baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their
neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living
arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the
marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of
domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state
expenses.

But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative
effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the
institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2)
bad for children, and 3) bad for society.

1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the
very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every
Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a
woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an
analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the
idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other
arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage
recognize this contradiction by proposing gay unions instead, but this
distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them
is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.

Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental
understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect
will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of
marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. Among
gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more
likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the
most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book,
Virtually Normal. There is more likely to be a greater understanding of
the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and
a woman. ... Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its
flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and
inform many heterosexual bonds.

The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely
homosexual denomination, made the same point. Monogamy is not a word
the gay community uses, Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. We
talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest
relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people
with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that
committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's
no deception.

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal,
suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even
among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight
partners per year outside their monogamous relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.

Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace
relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent
advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental
support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman
of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction
between traditional marriage and polyamory (group marriage) morally
neutral. She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help
us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in
the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is
not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer
2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law
professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law
Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be
more receptive to [marital] units of three or more (1996 Michigan Law
Review).

2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article
in Child Trends, Research clearly demonstrates that family structure
matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a
family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual
couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples
want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means
some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of
their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised
by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a
greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual
experiences more often.

Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality
to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression,
HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly
alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among
12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual
orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is chic in certain
elite social sectors.

Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that
marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not
essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by
those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not
fulfilling to them.

3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described
above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having
trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If
marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society,
introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for
society.

In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by
activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast
majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a
woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial
activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring
contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It
would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division
that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will
seriously harm Americans, including those in heterosexual marriages, over
the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the
traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional
amendment.

Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed
by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for
marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our
capacity to live up to its ideals.

Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke
College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public
Theology Project. Viewpoints published in Speaking Out do not
necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.

END