Those who argue for maintaining the centuries-old definition of marriage are cast as imposing their narrow beliefs upon an unwilling majority. But it is a vocal minority that is seeking to rewrite the legal definition of marriage and thereby alter the understanding of family in ways that will dramatically weaken this foundation of society.
To make this case, I do not need to resort to hateful attacks or to quote Scripture or construct tortured slippery-slope arguments. Rather, I can simply quote those who are arguing for legalizing same-sex unions (whether it's called marriage or civil union, it amounts to the same thing) and examine the legal precedents that are coming into play.
Anne Stanback of the group Love Makes a Family gave testimony in favor of gay marriage before the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 7. She was questioned about the ramifications of her position by state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk. Cafero asked Stanback this: If same-sex marriage is legalized, "What is the magic about the number two?" In other words, why limit the number of partners in a marriage?
Stanback's response is revealing. Though stipulating that she was advocating only for "who can marry, not ... how many," she could not articulate a reason why the number of partners ought necessarily to be limited legally: "I don't know what the magic is about two."
Cafero pressed the issue: "Do you think it's discriminatory to limit [marriage] to two people?"
Stanback did not counter this line of reasoning: "I don't know. I don't know. I haven't thought enough about the issue. It certainly gets raised."
Whether or not she has indeed thought about this issue, the name of her organization gives the answer to Cafero's insightful line of questioning. If indeed love - however defined - defines family, then what is the legal or logical rationale for limiting the number of partners who can be joined in marriage? When the foundation for marriage is shifted to a vague definition of "love," then how is it not discriminatory to say that multiple partners who share love cannot be married?
Leading voices in an emerging radical school of family law are arguing for these very things. University of Michigan Law Professor David Chambers wrote in the Michigan Law Review that gay marriage would make society accepting of further legal changes: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more ..."
When children enter the picture, the legal ramifications become even more confusing. In a 2000 Minnesota case (LaChapelle vs. Mitten), shared-custody rights were granted to two lesbian partners and a third party, a sperm donor.
If gay couples can marry, the arguments for extending parental rights to triumvirates will become only stronger. How could a non-DNA-contributing marriage partner be denied? And likewise, it would be difficult to limit state-sanctioned marriage to exclude a person already granted parenting rights by the state.
Our legislators need to weigh these considerations carefully before legalizing a redefinition of marriage that would create a court quagmire and further weaken family life. Recent generations have certainly seen how imperfectly people live out the ideals of covenantal marriage between one man and one woman as a foundation for family. But our laws protect and reward that ideal because it best protects children and strengthens society. Radically changing the definition of marriage and family, however, will only make the attainment of that ideal harder - and our social fabric will be further weakened in the process.
The Rev. Rick McKinniss is the minister of Wellspring Church in Berlin.
E-mail story
