Point of View

STEMBERGER

In the coming months Florida Baptists will begin to hear the voices of those who oppose the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman on the ballot in 2008. Unfortunately what you will not hear is a robust debate on the merits of so called "gay marriage." Instead you will hear the typical claim that marriage laws are "discriminatory" and the especially deceptive and wild claim that the amendment will "take away benefits from senior citizens." Let me address these claims and set the record straight.

First, current marriage laws do not arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals. Thirteen years ago I applied for a marriage license in Leon County. They did not ask me if I had a same sex attraction, if I ever had a homosexual experience, or whether I identified myself as "gay." They did ask me if I was over the age of eighteen, marrying someone over the age of eighteen, marrying my sister or my cousin, or if I was already married. They also wanted to know if I was marrying someone of the opposite sex. If I failed to meet any one of these legal requirements, then I could not have obtained the license. The reality is that all of us have limitations on who we can marry.

Most of us react negatively to any claim of discrimination. But truth be told, every law discriminates in the sense that it sets forth distinctions and creates limitations for human behavior. The real question is whether those limitations are arbitrary and capricious—or whether they serve a greater purpose to benefit the common good.

Consider how differently government treats homeowners versus home renters. Owners get tax breaks, incentives, protections and other goodies that renters do not. Now why is that? Is it because we think home owners are greater in value, worth or dignity under the Constitution? No. It is because home owners benefit society in unique and important ways that renters may not. Homeowners typically stimulate the economy; they take care of properties; and they create greater stability. It's the same with natural marriage.

My sister is 42 and single. She has lived with another woman most of her life. She loves and is committed to this woman—as a friend. Should she be granted the right to marry? No. Because her same-sex platonic friendship does not benefit children, families and society the way that natural marriage does.

Further, if the only two criteria for marriage are love and commitment, then where do we draw the line? Should society allow every person—or groups of persons—to marry irrespective of age, current marital status, closeness of familial relations, or what expression of sexuality they prefer? Of course not. The institution of natural marriage is not like a buffet where you can pick and choose whatever you like best. If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing.

Secondly, without explanation or analysis, opponents will irresponsibly argue that the marriage amendment could prohibit people from getting benefits and will adversely affect senior citizens.

The language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment closely follows the existing state marriage law and will have the same legal effect. The amendment defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman—and then bans polygamy, group marriages and same sex marriages. The language does not prohibit any of the existing domestic partnerships in Florida. These partnerships grant only a small bundle of rights such as hospital visitation and burial rights—all of which incidentally can be obtained through private contract and simple estate planning documents. Florida Domestic Partnerships are clearly not "treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent" and they are therefore permitted under both the current law and the proposed amendment. In fact, Florida Courts have already made this clear. The amendment also does not interfere with same sex benefits granted by private or public entities for the same reasons.

Our opponents know if they discuss the merits of homosexual marriage they will lose. They must resort to desperate scare tactics aimed at our most vulnerable members—senior citizens. This same pathetic ploy was used in Arizona, the first state that failed to pass their state marriage amendment.

Finally, I use the terms same-sex marriage and same-sex families interchangeably. Because when you create a same-sex marriage, you simultaneously create a same-sex family. And the question now becomes: Is this arrangement in the best interest of children? Clearly it is not. Same sex marriage subjects children to a vast untested social experiment.

Children need both a mom and a dad. This is the optimal arrangement for human socialization. Kids need to understand the proper relationship between a man and a woman, a father and a mother, and a husband and a wife. Moms and dads communicate differently, discipline differently, motivate differently and both uniquely contribute to a child's development. Same-sex marriage necessarily assumes there is no inherent value or importance to human masculinity or femininity in the rearing of children.

Gay-identified men and women are citizens of the United States of America. They pay taxes, serve in the military, and contribute to our society. They should be afforded the full dignity, respect, and protection given to all other citizens. However they should not be granted special rights to fundamentally redefine this basic human institution and then force that definition upon the rest of society through unelected, unaccountable, activist judges.