Many have been scratching their heads wondering if John McCain was as far off the reservation as once assumed. Some who abstained from voting have questioned their actions because of the presidency of Barack Obama. Now, we get an example of the kind of advice McCain was getting. His chief advisor is recommending the GOP drop its opposition to gay marriage. In his view the only reason to oppose it is the Bible and this puts the party in danger of becoming a religious party. How quickly people forget that it was the religious right, pushed into action by Rowe v. Wade, that drove the Reagan revolution. With advisors like Steve Schmidt let’s just hope McCain has given up on the Oval Office and stays home in 2012. I doubt he would even be much good even stumping for anyone.

First of all, consider the political ramifications of such a change. Gay marriage is far from popular with the American people. This would actually be selling out on an issue grassroots Republicans feel very strongly about. Just what we need, the GOP acting more like the Democrats!

Mr. Schmidt, like many, assumes that religion is the only reason to oppose gay marriage. I am an evangelical Christian and as such I believe that homosexuality is a deviant choice—I said choice intentionally. However, my religion causes me to see homosexuality as something between the individual and God. I have nothing to do with their choice or actions. So long as your choice does not interfere with my rights then I say “live and let live.” This means that I will leave it up to God to judge your activities and stay out of it. This doesn’t make me silent, just directed. As a Bible teacher I must teach what I believe and as a parent, I must each my children. But as a Christian who loves liberty, I stand with any person whose rights are being violated—gay or not. Many reading this would assume that I then support gay marriage, but that would be false. I oppose it, but not for religious reasons. I oppose it on the ground of rights and proper limits of government.

Many chant that gay marriage is a matter of equal rights, claiming that bans on gay marriage are limiting rights. The problem with this is the idea that marriages are licensed and permitted to extend a right. Any license, by its very nature is a limiting of freedom. Marriage is an effort to enjoin legal responsibility upon one who acts on his right—by limiting those rights. Any male or female has, by possession of their body, a right to sexual expression. What one does with their own body and one does with another’s body is a matter of personal decision and informed consent. I say ‘informed’ consent because the person giving consent must be able to make the decision responsibly. Those under a certain age are considered too immature to make the choice so their consent is uninformed and therefore void. Sex with such an individual is not consensual but predatory, so protection by government action is appropriate. How two mature adults choose to act in private is no concern of anyone else. Let God or their own religious organization decide on the moral issues. But where does marriage come in?

Marriage has always been a devise for protection. At different times, in different cultures it has protected different things, but it has always been a tool to limit freedom of action. The only reason government interferes in the rights of an individual is protection of another’s rights, providing balance or retribution. Marriage limits the freedom of each individual in the union, balancing these freedoms against the rights, perceived or real, of all involved. Our culture has changed, but in a traditional marriage you see all of these factors played out. Marriage protects family honor and inheritance while protecting the mate traditionally more dependent upon the union—the wife. Each of these can be taken in turn.

Family honor is a matter that was once far more important than most westerners understand today. This included the honor of the families of the bride and groom, now united through marriage, as well as the honor of the newly created family. This honor was dependent on their relationship. Violating the bonds of marriage caused a loss of honor through guilt to the offending partner and a loss of honor through shame to the offended partner and both families. However, there was far more at stake than just honor. Questions of inheritance added to the problem. When a woman was unfaithful, the husband could not be assured that the children he sought to provide for and to leave an inheritance were truly his. This endangered all the children with questions of patrilineage. This inspired families to protect the virginity of a daughter and explains why the loss of virginity prior to marriage shamed the family. This demand for fidelity to ensure legitimate progeny can be seen in many of our most cherished wedding customs. For example, the white gown attests before the the groom and all in attendance to the bride’s virginity: she has saved herself for him, and any children born to this union will be the grooms legitimate offspring. The father gives the bride away at the wedding, testifying to the woman’s purity and giving permission for the groom to have intercourse with her.

Family honor was an issue for the families to protect, but inheritance is an issue that is very important to the state because, according to Locke, government exists to protect property. Upon the father’s death to whom does the property go? During the father’s life and the minority of the children, what are the father’s responsibilities in providing for them? In ancient times, a father that was unsure of his children’s legitimacy might abandon them with the mother, leaving them to fend for themselves. With the institution of legal marriage a legal fiction was enacted; the law declared any children born into the marriage were the responsibility of the husband, in care and inheritance. All children produced in the marriage were his, regardless of other circumstances.

As for the protecting the wife, she traditionally did little or no work outside of the house. Most of the skills she had were homebound skills provided by the ladies of each house, so they were of little marketable value. In many ancient cultures a woman had the choice of being supported by her father, her son, her husband, or in the absence of these turning to prostitution. A woman could spend years with a man, warming his bed, raising his children and keeping his home, only to find herself turned out and discarded when her best years were gone. Marriage protected the ‘weaker sex’ in this regard. This is the reason behind common-law marriage in the states recognizing it. In such states, the man receiving matrimonial benefits takes on matrimonial responsibilities and the woman, who has consented to this, is protected.

So marriage is not itself a right. As a legal institution it is meant to limit the individual freedom of all involved for the good of all involved as a whole—the husband’s wealth goes to his children, the wife is protected from rejection by her husband, and the children are ensured of care and inheritance. Of course, many of these protections have been weakened because of modern changes. No fault divorce and DNA testing along with the loss of stigma attached to premarital and even extra-marital sex have changed or done away with many of these protections.

So the argument that heterosexuals have a right to marry that is denied to homosexuals is a fallacy. Heterosexuals who choose to limit their freedoms in a union, do so to provide protections that are unneeded by the homosexual couple. In a homosexual couple there is no assumption or demand for virginity because there are no issues of inheritance—there being no progeny to protect or provide for. Also, neither individual is placed dependent to the other by society or gender roles since they both share the same gender, the same roles and the same opportunities. Neither will one be naturally expected to stay home to nurture non-existent progeny.

Another problem with the argument of a right to marry is one of definition. Marriage has historically and culturally been the union of man and woman to produce offspring and bring together two families. Numbers involved have varied from culture to culture and age to age. Where polygamy was once common, monogamy is the norm. Some cultures practice polyandry (multiple husbands share a wife), but these are very rare. These issues are a separate matter so I will not touch on arguments for or against either of them or monogamy. Though the numbers involved in a marriage have varied, the genders have not. Even in cultures who praised homosexual love, marriage was still the union of male and female. The reasons are same as laid out before: inheritance and protection of the rights of those involved—protections that were not an issue in homosexual unions.

The call for gay marriage is not a demand for legality but for legitimacy. By making the unions legally recognized they hope to give them legitimacy in the greater community. The problem with this is that the government can legalize, but never legitimize. Even with sanction and support, legitimacy is a moral issue and beyond government power. The effort to legitimize homosexual marriage is a run around the moral argument; an effort to trump those who hold religious views in opposition to this lifestyle.