The difference between MARRIAGE & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP

I do not disparage same-sex relationships. I know there are good people out there who truly love and are fully committed to each other. Some have better model relationships than many heterosexual couples. And I am willing to affirm the good qualities of any relationship. In fact, I wish more homosexual couples had healthier relationships. Nevertheless, since we are comparing the quality of relationships, I cannot neglect to observe that an ideal heterosexual relationship is healthier than an ideal homosexual one. That is not to in any way insinuate that the affective aspects of any relationship are inherently lesser than another. But it is to say that heterosexual relationships are the only ones inherently qualified to be considered a “marriage.”

California state law defines a domestic partnership as “two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring” (Family Code 297). Marriage is that and more. In terms of society (the aspect of marriage with which the law is concerned), marriage is primarily about procreation and raising children. Its sexual fertility and relational fidelity make marriage a uniquely- and ideally-suited context for such a purpose. Without both, marriage becomes a useless societal institution. If we stop having babies our culture will weaken and die. Without intact families and consistent parenting, raising children will unnecessarily become a strain on society.

“Marriage” is the name we use for this ideal procreation situation. Only the sexual union of a man and a woman can naturally produce a child. Sure, we can artificially inseminate and use various means and methods of conception and child birth. Generally speaking, I am not against reproductive technology. But the fact that same-sex couples must resort to it means they are not inherently qualified to be what we call “married.”

“Marriage” is also the name we use for the ideal core of the family unit: a husband and wife who potentially can become a father and mother. I know that many single parents make due and do well on their own. But those who are kids of those parents will also admit to something missing in their lives in the absence of a parent. I also know that some gay and lesbian couples may do a good job of raising children successfully. I am not contesting their competence or the fact some same-sex couples may be better parents than some traditional couples. But such a comparison obfuscates the matter. There will always be examples of good and bad in both camps. If we are going to compare, then a good traditional family is a better environment for children. That is because what is missing in the home of a single parent family is not a second parent. What is missing is having both a father and a mother. As Greg Koukl points out, “there is no difference between a white or a black human being. But there’s a big difference between a man and a woman. There is no comparison here with regards to that issue.” Gender matters. Mothers and fathers make distinctive contributions to the nurture and rearing of a child. Without one or the other a void is left that is deeply felt and must be filled.

So, what if we were to call same-sex unions “marriages” instead of “domestic partnerships” or something else altogether? After all, assuming Prop 8 passes, the only difference under the law between the two will be the name, right? True. But the distinction is of paramount importance.

First, we have already established that only marriage between a man and a woman is inherently qualified to be what society needs marriage to be, that is, fertile and faithful. Homosexuals cannot be fertile without outside assistance. And though they can be faithful to each other and provide a stable home for children they lack the ideal balance that a father and mother can bring.

Second, not only are gay and lesbian unions not inherently qualified, they are also fundamentally unnecessary to society. If we were to do away with them altogether (the unions, not the people) it would not affect the posterity of our nation one bit. However, if we were to do away with traditional unions our people would have no future. Every society unequivocally needs traditional marriage.

What this means is that, if our society changes the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions the distinction between “marriage” and “domestic partnership,” between traditional marriage and same-sex unions, will be erased in the eyes of the state and in the minds of future generations. Many will come to believe the two are equal. They will see the heterosexual- homosexual distinction as surface rather than fundamental. “Gay marriage” will achieve an equal moral and civil status in our culture as the rest of us are obliged to accept it in public policy and social intercourse. Those of us who continue to insist that the ideal family begins with a man and a woman committed for life will be dismissed for our outdated, possibly hateful, beliefs while gay and lesbian unions will erroneously be elevated to the status of “marriage” even though they do not meet the requirements that make marriage necessary to society.

For all these reasons, I am unwilling to give domestic partnership the legal status of being called and considered on par with “marriage” when it inherently is not. Even so, I support the current provisions to give domestic partners all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, albeit without the accompanying title.

Btw, all of this constitutes a non-religious argument for Proposition 8. As it turns out, I came to the same conclusion as my Christian brothers and sisters who simply took God at His Word. Although I do not encourage blind faith whatsoever, it does say something about the trustworthiness of biblical principles and precepts. They are not arbitrary but coincide beautifully with reality when taken to task.

My Take on Prop 8 - Part 1

I’ve wanted to address Proposition 8 (P8) for a while, but I did not want to write out of ignorance. So, after brushing up a little on the issue and considering both sides, here’s my response.

First, for the sake of intellectual honesty set your pre-judgments aside for a moment. Please refrain from lumping me in with others who have come to the same conclusion as I have and allow my views and arguments to stand or fall on their own.

Having said that, let me state my position. I am for P8 because, even if it passes, California law states, “registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses” (Family Code 297.5). That means that same-sex domestic partners already have the legal provisions equal to that of married spouses. If P8 passes, the only difference between same-sex and traditional couples will be in name only. Heterosexual union will be called “marriage.” Homosexual unions will be called “domestic partnership.” Other than that there will be no difference under the law. Thus, P8 will not discriminate; it will merely delineate, by name, whether unions are heterosexual or homosexual.

The opponents of P8 say it is unfair, wrong, and denies rights to same-sex couples. But those couples already have been given the exact same rights under the law. So, one cannot legitimately argue against the proposition on the basis of rights. They already have them.

There is a legitimate issue opponents of P8 raise: confusion. Domestic partners have the right to be there for each other in emergencies and times of need. However, there is often confusion over whether or not they have legal access and authority in such situations. But even if P8 fails to pass it will not remove the uncertainty. The confusion is not in the law but in the culture. Legally sanctioned homosexual union is relatively new to our society and it will take time for our cultural consciousness to catch up to our legal code. But this issue seems to me that it can be best addressed by better training of medical personnel and the like.

Through all this consideration the real issue comes to the surface. Same-sex couples are not seeking equal rights under the law. That is misleading. They are really seeking equal moral and civil status in the eyes of society. This position is indefensible for reasons I will discuss in a subsequent blog.