This was written in response to a blog posted by a friend of mine. You can read that blog here. It'd probably be helpful to read that blog first, because otherwise my counterpoints might not make any sense…
Children are important. Children are the future. Children can't protect themselves and so children should be protected. They should be protected by their parents, their families, the public and the government.
The gist of Brock's argument (as I understand it) is this - children should be protected. Children are created through procreation. It's best for children to be with their parents, and so government should incentivize birth parents to be married. He talks additionally about why contraceptives should be discouraged and sex should only be in marriage, both arguments that I think belong to the realm of religion.
Children are better off raised in houses where they are loved by their parent(s). The sex of the parents is irrelevant. "In fact, there is no scientifically sound research supporting the idea that children of same-gender parents are disadvantaged in any significant respect when compared with children of heterosexual parents." (See: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/176040781.html?refer=y) Those who are tempted to cite to Mark Regnerus' article "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?" should be cautioned that this study has been hotly opposed by psychology-buffs, and is, in my humble opinion, extremely flawed in its methodology. For more, see http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-blood/201206/flawed-study-gay-parenting-roundup-recent-media-coverage-and-critiques.
If it's all about the children, then children who are adopted need to be protected, too, and their welfare should be promoted. Adopted children do not come into the world through their adoptive parent(s) having sex. Does that make their marriages less worthy in the eyes of the state? Does it make them less capable parents?
Under Brock's argument, marriages between heterosexuals in which people choose not to raise children or are unable to conceive should not be endorsed or encouraged by the state, but the state (and when I say state, I of course refer to both the federal government and state governments) continues to endorse and promote such marriages. What's the point? Why should these people receive any benefits at all if they aren't having children? They shouldn't - under his argument - and yet they do. Why do these people deserve benefits where others don't?
My view on government is that religion should not be dictating it. The problem with Brock's argument is that it is rooted in religion. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a religious view on marriage. I think that's great. But I don't think the state or federal governments should allow one set of religious beliefs to dictate other people's ability to access various rights. READ: The 1st Amendment tells us that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The 14th Amendment, through incorporation, applies this standard to states as well.
Let me clarify what I mean when I say "rooted in religion." There's all this talk about "natural law," and at one point, "natural law" was pretty valid. It was vital to the continued existence of the human race. Men and women needed to copulate, make babies, raise them, protect them, teach them to take care of themselves, and then the cycle would repeat. Parents stayed loyal because loyalty is beneficial to both parties and to the children. Why is it beneficial? Because two parents are better than one. But as we saw above, the gender of those parents doesn't affect the welfare of the child.
Religion fully endorsed the cycle governed by natural law. Many religions fully endorse this. Where we're at now though is a different story. We're overpopulated with millions of kids parentless, poor, and hungry. Is it even responsible to be creating more children and not caring for the others? Is it Christian? That's a debate that's well out of my league, but I think it's time to recognize that the paradigm has shifted and if we want to focus on children, then we need to allow same sex couples to have the FULL benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy so they can raise children in a happy environment.
I don't know the answers to the questions on polygyny, polyandry or polyamory. I haven't studied it much and I'm not even sure it's relevant. Polygamist marriages and homosexual marriages are not related. Just like age of consent and concerns about related persons marrying are not related, but both have restrictions by government. Just because one is changed does not cause the other to be changed. I highly doubt polygyny or polyandry (man with many wives, or woman with many husbands) would be legalized because I feel that where there is one person with more power/rights in the relationship, the relationship is ripe for other inequalities and injustices (call me silly, but I'm pretty sure that's why women actually HAVE rights in marriages at all at this point, because, you know, we used to just be property). Polyamory is another situation altogether, one which I don't know enough about to comment on though. Regardless, let's remember that no matter what the law says, people can live in these relationships with or without the government's sanction, so children could still end up being raised in these non-traditional families.
Some points made that I just need to rant on for a second:
- Don't even get me started on the fact that single parents can be GREAT parents.
- Abortion is a viable option in most cases because people AREN'T using contraceptives. They are using abortion AS a contraceptive. Advocating the use of contraceptives does not make abortion a viable option. Roe v. Wade made abortion a viable option.
- Many marriages that end before children are welcomed into it often end for the very reason that people were unable to conceive. I'm not saying this a good reason to get divorced (I don't believe there are many good reasons to get divorced), but I think an important part of the population that has trouble conceiving or never conceives is being ignored in the "natural law" argument.
In closing, I just want to say that I think Brock makes an excellent case for straight marriage. I just think it's founded in religion, specifically Catholicism, and I think that makes it irrelevant to the debate on government's role in marriage. Additionally, the comments on the original blog raise some really great arguments, some of which are explored here, and one that I think is very important but I really didn't go in to in this post (sterility).
