MONOGAMY AS THE CRITERION FOR CIVIL MARRIAGE (12/7/03)

The moment that various judiciaries struck down anti-sodomy laws and sanctioned same-sex marriage, the talking heads started bombarding us with alarmist prattle about opening the door to legalized polygamy, incest, pedophilia and the rest of the litany of sexual horrors.

“What is the difference between one kind of aberrant behavior and another?” they ask. Before cooler heads can offer a cogent difference – as if it would matter – they launch into the absurd reductio ad absurdum argument that legitimizing one form of “aberrant” behavior would set a legal precedent for sanctioning all other sexual aberrations.

The State typically sinks into a conundrum whenever it tries to legislate private morality. Regulation of private morality has best been left the province of religion, and even then, it can leave messy paradoxes. Traditional Judaism, for example, does not allow marriage between a divorcee and a descendent of Aaron the High Priest. Yet, rabbis will routinely remove the obstacle by granting the equivalent of an annulment to the divorcee. Likewise, the Catholic Church frequently sanctions annulment in the case of remarriage, to the point that it is no longer the exception so much as it is the de facto rule. And, what of some Fundamentalist denominations that will not sanctify the marriage of a couple that has cohabited, but will grant “retroactive virginity” to people who pledge renewed chastity?

The State, however, does have every responsibility to regulate aberrant behavior to protect the public interest. Sexual relations with a non-consenting adult or a minor defy the public interest, as does any act of aggression. Incest, likewise, is typically forcible behavior, and even when it is not, it invariably does irreparable intrapsychic damage and subverts the generational integrity of the family. To people of religious commitment, these are sins, but to the State they are issues of defending personal and familial propriety.

Is homosexuality aberrant behavior? Let that determination, too, be the province of religion and religious pluralism. The State’s interest must focus not on the issue of sexual perversity but on protecting, even advancing, the civil institution of monogamy. Monogamy at its best ensures mutual responsibility, fidelity, interdependency, relational stability, lasting commitment. In short, monogamy is about virtues that build abiding, trusting relationships and the values that make for strong communities, nationhood and social order. Infidelity, domestic violence, promiscuousness, abandonment, tear those values asunder.

The State, thus, has every rightful investment in conferring its approval on faithfully monogamous relationships through the civil – not religious – institution of marriage. It likewise has every rightful investment is ending marriage through civil divorce when trust or fidelity is broken.

Religious values may or may not validate homosexual marriages. But, the interest of the State is advanced as much by a monogamously committed homosexual relationship as it is by a similarly committed heterosexual one. The State, hence, should not be in the business of simply tolerating homosexual monogamy. It should place its approval upon it by welcoming faithful homosexual couples to all the benefits – and responsibilities – that marriage confers.

The same, of course, cannot be said of polygamy. Few and far between are the instances that private cohabitation with multiple partners is treated as a criminal offense. Yet, it does not deserve the civic stature of marriage, because it thwarts the virtues that monogamy supports, which ought be the sole point of distinction between a discretionary relationship and a marital bond.

The legitimate forum for arguing the morality of homosexual marriage is the pulpit and seminary. The minister, priest, rabbi or imam must retain the final say over conferring the religious rite of marriage on a homosexual couple. The State, though, must be equally obliged to protect those relationships that promote the commonweal. When all is said and done, a faithfully committed, monogamous homosexual marriage has the capacity to ensure societal integrity on an even footing with a heterosexual one. Let the State define the public interest and stay assiduously away from defining private morality.