By Harold Pease
Three years ago I published a column that had absolutely nothing to do with the gay issue. Shortly thereafter a reader emailed that she could not attend my upcoming Tea Party address on the U.S. Constitution because of that column which she perceived was negative to her gay interests. I was shocked. Such is the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage.
Amidst this hysteria comes a view from one who is gay but opposed to gay marriage. I would not now write about his objections had the media done justice to the gay view that opposes gay marriage. It is totally ignored. Doug Mainwaring sees his gay associates as “selfish adults” who “have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop,” the right to a father and a mother.
He is disappointed that the media misses the full and complete discussion of the issue, primarily the part that deals with unintended consequences. Advocates of gay marriage are selfish, he believes, because they exclude this part of the debate. What does this do to the children from these relationships, the definition of a family, even the meaning of marriage? “Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions,” he argues. These exclusions have consequences even if we deny that possibility.
In the past, he maintains, “defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle” by “appeals to religion and tradition.” But today the institutions that most readily influence public opinion favor the move, as for example, the establishment media, politicians and large corporations. “One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks,” he writes. “We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.”
Politicians likewise appear to support it because “they’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.” Giant corporations too have come on board ever “eager to polish their images and create goodwill.”
Without thought to unintended consequences as part of the dialogue, he writes, “genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness,” but it “will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.”
Unintended consequences have already damaged the institution of marriage, he argues, even before the gay marriage issue. “No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time” but “it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.”
Mainwaring’s most powerful argument is that “same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a ‘right’ to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over. Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘conservative’ legislation. It is ‘regressive’ legislation.”
He ends with a plea to seriously consider the unintended consequences before they become consequences. “But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that” (I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage, by Doug Mainwaring, thePublicDiscourse.com, March 27, 2013).
Out of the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage and away from the institutions that so influence and manage our thinking comes the voice of reason and it comes from one who is gay. Perhaps it is time to listen, or at the very least, consider the time tested unintended consequences especially for the children who have no voice in the debate. It is rather pious of us to just ignore the possible consequences of this issue.