by Nathan A. Cherry
What are the real-world implications of marriage redefinition?
Let’s put the emotional narrative and political rhetoric aside and talk about the real-world implications of normalizing marriage other than that of one man and one woman within our society.
Marriage was intended to be the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bearing and raising kids in order to propagate humanity and society. From a biblical position, marriage was also intended to be a visible image of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His bride, the church. On an individual level marriage was intended to make us holy, others-centered people. Anything outside this understanding of marriage is inadequate and presents a false view of God’s intended purpose for marriage.
In the effort to redefine marriage, proponents often say that marriage is just a legal contract intended to convey governmental benefits. Ok, I’ll accept that as a secondary, far less significant, man-made construct for modern marriage. That does not in any way alter the true purpose and definition of marriage. Nor should it somehow assuage the conscience and allow support for marriage redefinition.
When we as a society stray from the established purpose and definition of marriage we bring upon ourselves a whole new set of moral, societal, and legal troubles.
For example, a Kansas judge recently ruled that a sperm donor is liable for child support to the lesbian woman he helped to conceive a child. Forget your moral or religious position on sperm donors for a moment; as that discussion brings with it a whole new set of troubles. Allow yourself a moment to understand that a sperm donor intending to simple provide one half of the genetic information needed to bring a child into this world, with a woman he didn’t know that was living in a lesbian relationship, has just been told he is to now act like a father.
Rather than acknowledging that children need both a mother and a father, the people that brought the child into the world, our society has decided that children simply need parent A and parent B. All of the strings, connections, and attachment associated with bringing a child into the world have been removed – paving the way for anonymous sperm donors. But out of the blue a judge has decided this anonymous sperm donor needs to step up and, in the very least, act like a father by providing financial support to the child and mother.
The very idea that a man would be willing to father a child without actually being the father shows just how disconnected from the intended purpose of marriage our society is. Any man willing to offer his DNA without also offering his commitment, time, money, and physical presence reduces himself to a lowly function as a bonded servant. That so many men are willing to do this is not an act of compassion or service to society, it is a travesty. And yet when a man is called to step up and support the child he helped to father, it is now called “offensive,” as this man’s lawyer has so spoken:
“The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.”
There it is, “no personal relationship.” This wasn’t the act of loving parents; this was a business transaction, a contract. This is the new way to view marriage and even parenting. Not as a loving, committed, lifelong endeavor, now it really is nothing more than a legally binding contract that can be altered when one or both parties feels the need to renegotiate.
Creating a right to marriage for homosexuals will only lead to further moral and legal troubles such as this case created. Of course it is troubled waters for homosexuals in the first place as they sought to have their relationships legally recognized in order to be parents to children. Since they cannot have children naturally within their relationships they rely on sperm donors and adoption. But apparently not even those options are guaranteed through marriage for homosexuals.
When a lesbian couple in New York sought to legally adopt their son a surrogate court judge denied their request. The reason, according to the judge, is that it would undermine the states recognition of same-sex marriage. In other words, even though legally “marriage” according to the state of New York, this lesbian couple still did not gain the full sense of parenthood they had hoped. They wanted added layers of protection just in case laws in other states conflicted with New York laws.
This shows that marriage is more than just a legal contract, more than a word, more than some arbitrary idea molded by society. Marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children. Outside of this understanding loom only confusion, unrest, and an array of legal and moral troubles.
Only the naïve would think that marriage began to be altered in light of a push for homosexual rights. The definition of marriage first began to suffer when divorce became “no big deal” and almost expected among the newlywed. From Hollywood to politics the echo reverberated that divorce happens and society should simply get over it. But as W. Bradford Wilcox explains, the effects of divorce are being felt among society in profound ways:
“From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year…involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place…as the nation seeks to make sense of these senseless shootings, we must also face the uncomfortable truth that turmoil at home all too often accounts for the turmoil we end up seeing spill onto our streets and schools.”
So now we can see that altering the definition of marriage has consequences for every person in society. The moral and legal tangles that accompany any attempt to transform marriage and family from what it was intended to be will be many and never ending. While it might be uncomfortable, it needs to be stated that redefining marriage will create an entire segment of the population that have no chance of being raised with their biological mother and father. Donated sperm and eggs will rob children of the chance to know what it is like to know both of their biological parents and pretending this is acceptable is morally reprehensible and reckless.
Only time will tell how these children being raised without a biological parent will do. Will evidence of emotional and mental stress from living without a biological parent take a long-term toll? We shall see.
From school violence and criminal activity to moral and legal troubles leading to children without biological parents, altering marriage is harmful to society. Children need and deserve to be raised by their biological parents. The selfish desires of adults should not punish innocent children as society caters to one group or another. If marriage is continually redefined, and by necessity if it is redefined once it must be redefined continually, we will see civil unrest grow.
As evidence has shown, kids need a mother and a father and society ought to be doing everything within its power to ensure biological parents are raising their children; rather than tearing them apart.