Purportedly, “marriage equality” would make both opposite sex and same sex union equal by raising same sex marriage to the lofty centrality of opposite sex marriage. But without the myriad unique elements that traditional marriage brought by the combination of the two sexes, with all their physical and actual physiological differences, “equality” could only be achieved by making the opposite happen, with this once central society denigrated to all irrelevancy beyond virtue signaling.
“One of the arguments made by proponents of same-sex marriage was that making the institutions of marriage inclusive of same-sex couples would ‘strengthen’ marriage in the culture generally. It’s not hard to find voices like Jonathan Rauch saying that same-sex marriage was a ‘socially conservative’ movement about protecting children.
“Andrew Sullivan often reminds us that when he started arguing for legal recognition of gay marriage, he was opposed by the majority of the gay community who wanted no part of a patriarchal institution. Even as late as 2000, the argument that homosexuals should be in the radical vanguard of disrupting and dismantling marriage could be published in the Nation.
“Proponents of same-sex marriage like Sullivan and Rauch won in the courts, and in a thin slice of the elite. But it looks more like the anti-marriage radicals won the future in the culture.
“Marriage is in steady and steep decline, as the rise in unmarried and never-married adults and in the share of out-of-wedlock births continues.
“America is retreating from marriage. Of course the radicals imagined that what would replace marriage would be better. But by and large, Americans are replacing it with nothing. Resigning the married life and having fewer children means more people will live without dense networks of kin. They will live atomized lives marked by more and longer periods of intense loneliness and despair.”
This was inevitable. Oh, marriage as an institution was under attack—same sex marriage was but the final nail in the coffin.
There used to be a compelling reason for marriage, especially with legal enforcement. What two (or more) people feel towards each other and decide to do together because of that, however, isn’t a compelling reason for marriage to even exist. It doesn’t serve the same societal function. If anything, it minimized to nothing the actual social value and purpose of marriage. At this point, “marriage” is just a civil partnership wearing the corpse marriage like a skinsuit while demanding respect.
“But that doesn’t affect your marriage or anyone else”, the cry is espoused! But when the breakdown of marriage as an institution becomes widespread, it does have bearing on others, and not just others’ marriages. I doesn’t affect you… but it does.
Marriage served to channel the natural and normal inclination of people to engage in reproductive activities (i.e. coitus) into a stable relationship in which to bring up the resultant children. But can’t same sex couples adopt, have children from prior relationships, or even use a surrogate? Isn’t that the same?
No, it isn’t. That is just an imitation—an attempt at imitative magic. It is also ancillary to that central purpose aforementioned. There are both physical and actual physiological differences between the sexes. A female can’t be a male role model, nor a male a female role model. Children need parents who can provide both. A female can be a female role model. A male can’t because they are not female, being both physically and physiologically different.
But what about love? People who are not in a romantic relationship can, and always have, been able to get married, and have done so quite often in history. A non-romantic marital relationship between a man an a woman who are committed to being a wife/mother and husband/father is far more of a marriage—especially when it comes to societal importance, meaning, and value—than just two people in “love” could ever be.
Update: Typo correct.