Hurtling Down the Slippery Slope

(Author’s Note:  Though I originally wrote this post in July, I have been so busy that I have just now found a moment to edit it and step back into blogging.) 

I realize that the more I wade into this marriage water, the hotter it is going to get.  My views (though unchanging) are increasingly becoming politically incorrect and soon to be, if not now already, branded as “bigoted” and “hateful”.  I adamantly reject those labels and press on.  I suppose I want to get on record now so that as events and decisions regarding marriage play out in our country, a memory (however faint it may be) of these words may provoke others to consider what I’m saying.

Back in February, I engaged the topic of Traditional Marriage for the first time on this blog.  I could have written parts of it thirty years ago, and I could have written all of it one or two years ago.  I think I am perhaps a little late to the party.  With my oldest son’s recent engagement, marriage has been on my mind again.  What is a marriage?  What is its purpose?  Why is marriage such a divisive topic all of a sudden?  Why does it matter to me who gets married?  In current conversation, we are now hearing evangelical Christians wonder if the civil aspects of marriage really matter at all – if we shouldn’t just focus within the church on our Christian view of marriage and let the rest of the world go their own way as they see fit.

These are reasonable questions, but I think this may get things a little backwards.  I have never believed that laws should prohibit freely chosen behaviors that have no effect on those other than the participants, even if I am absolutely convinced the actions are morally wrong or sinful.  That’s usually the argument I hear regarding legalizing same-sex marriage (or drugs, or prostitution, or gambling, etc.).  The truth is, I hear these folks, and I suppose in some ways I already partially hold their views.  There are many activities I believe are sinful for a Christian which I would not advocate making illegal.  It’s not my job to wrestle with the consciences and convictions of others.

The rub comes, however, in the characterization of “behaviors that have no effect on those other than the participants”.  I could argue that there may be no behaviors which have no effect on those outside the participants, yet I recognize that some behaviors have fewer ripple effects than others.  As Christians in a civil society, we have to learn to separate our personal convictions regarding behaviors (which include a belief in the negative spiritual impacts of certain activities we know as “sin”) from the civil impacts of those same behaviors.  If there is no harm to one’s neighbor or greater societal harm from one’s actions, I have no issue with allowing something I believe is wrong to be legal for those who disagree.  This is where the rubber meets the road for me with same sex marriage, and this is the battleground whether I want it or not with those who disagree.

As I stated in my prior post concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage,

I believe we will now inevitably see the onslaught of every kind of challenge to traditional marriage.  Plural marriage, intra-family marriage, common law marriage, and no marriage at all – I believe these will inevitably become the norms for America going forward.  I am certainly not the first to say it, but it is no less obvious to me that we have jumped onto the slippery slope and are careening toward a place where the definition of marriage is so broad that it means nothing at all.

Many of us see the inevitability of the “slippery slope” argument when it comes to same-sex marriage.  I have personally been called some names which question my intellect and my heart for holding this view.  People have accused me of ridiculousness and unwarranted fear-mongering.  Nonetheless, I stand by my original thought:  Legalization of same-sex marriage will not enhance marriage by expanding its benefits to more people; it will hasten the total demise of marriage as a civil institution altogether.

Here’s a case in point reported last summer (July 10, 2014) from Australia in the British newspaper The Telegraph:  Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo.  The Telegraph summarized the Australian judge’s comments made during a rape trial when the judge addressed sexual relationships between a biological brother and sister:

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

The logic is inescapable.  If a marriage is not between an unrelated man and a woman, then what is it?  Why confine it to unrelated individuals?  Why confine it to two people?  Why confine it to adults? 

For those of us who base our moral compass on what we believe God has revealed through Christ, the answers can be more black and white (although the history of Christianity reveals that even this is very difficult for fallible humans) in our personal lives.  The difficulty comes in identifying those behaviors which are not just morally wrong for a Christian, but injurious to people who are not participants in the behavior. 

Marriage is the perfect example.  It seems beyond question to me that the union between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of raising healthy and well-adjusted children is in the best interests of society.  Does traditional marriage achieve perfection for this ideal?  Certainly not.  Divorce is rampant.  Spousal abuse is epidemic.  Adultery, neglect, abandonment – far too many families have experienced all of these.  Yet that does not remove the intent nor the ideal for traditional marriage as a benefit to civil society.  Just because we fail to achieve the ideal does not mean that the ideal should be abandoned. 

Refusal to sanction non-traditional marriage does not constitute an assault against those who choose alternate lifestyles.  Rather, it promotes an ideal for which our citizens should aspire.  This is true aside from religious considerations.  If we privilege everything, we promote nothing.  That is not good for America.  This is why I support legal sanction for Traditional Marriage only.