In an historic session and amidst tears, cries of discrimination and impassioned pleas from the left, the Minnesota Legislature passed a measure to put a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012. Opponents of the measure see marriage as a private matter between two individuals of which the state should not involve itself. There is a fundamental flaw with their argument.
One of the purposes of state government is to seek the public good. The private purpose of marriage; friendship, shared financial support, and sexual exclusivity do not add up to the purpose of the public good. However, the interest of a child to have both a mother and a father does serve the public good and so does having parents rights and responsibilities acknowledged and protected.
Marriage is the basic unit of society and community. To redefine it will change the basic structure of how our society is organized. Is it too hard to understand that there are differences between same sex couples and couples of the opposite sex? The fundamental difference is that same sex couples can not procreate. The result of the sexual revolution of the 1960's separated sex from marriage and gave birth to a new movement that separates biological parents from parenthood. In redefining marriage to include same sex couples, the courts and legislatures will then have to redefine the purpose of marriage which historically was procreation. If societies recognized that procreation was the primary purpose of marriage throughout history and as such deserving of special recognition and rights, what is society to do with the new definition including same sex couples when procreation is not possible? Not only will procreation no longer be the main function of marriage it will no longer be a function of marriage at all. This is why a redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples will destroy the foundational purpose of marriage altogether.
People who see this as a rights issue are missing the fundamental point. We are not talking about a contract between two people but rather the very basis of how we create a community. Marriage is how we bring children into the world and nearly every religion and civilization throughout history recognizes this.
So what's the problem? The problem with redefining marriage to include same sex marriage is that it will necessitate redefining parenthood. Parenthood will be less based on biology and increasingly based on decisions by courts and legislatures. Rather than biology being the factor determining parenthood, instead legal opinion will, and that changes everything.
The people of Minnesota need to understand the fundamentals at stake here. This is not a matter of civil rights or discrimination as the liberals in the Minnesota Legislature and their supporters would have us think. If we are going to accept the time tested truth that the ideal setting for raising children is with their biological mother and father then we must be willing to admit that could never be accomplished in a same sex marriage. The closest we could come to the previously accepted ideal would be to have only one biological parent. This debate is not about individual rights but about the public good, the basis of civilization and what is best for raising children.
