Just when I thought I had lost all desire to dwell on the daily sins of an abusive regime (i.e. America's federal government), a federal judge struck down the will of the people and with it California's infamous Proposition 8 and in so doing, rejuvenated my hibernating passion, if only for a moment.
When I first heard the news today, I was surprised, but hardly shocked. After all, judges at every level have been legislating from the bench at an alarming rate since 1962; if you need a memory refresher, that's the year the Supreme Court outlawed prayer in public schools. But, seeing as I, along with 13-14 million of my fellow Californians, actually had the opportunity to vote on Prop. 8, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's decision held a significant interest to me.
So, last night, after listening to what pundits on both sides as well as my parents and grandfather had to say on the matter, I decided to do what none of them had done or most likely will do; read Judge Walker's decision in it's entirety. Let me tell you 130 some pages of legal speak is definitely not a walk in the park, but I navigated through every word of it and arrived at a more enlightened place then I had been before I embarked (and no, that does not mean that I agree with the judge's decision).
Examining Judge Walker's decision brought to the forefront of my mind an issue that I had, up until that time, failed to give proper weight to when analyzing gay marriage. This issue's importance is undeniable and yet, you won't here Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity discuss it, you won't read about it in the NY Times or the Washington Post. No, incredibly, this particular issue has maintained a low profile and sailed under most people's radar.
So, what is this little known, but powerful contributor to a proper understanding of gay marriage, Prop. 8 and the future of marriages in this country? The redefinition of gender roles. Now, I know what you're saying; “No duh!” But, hear me out on this one. As we all know, the redefinition of gender roles is clearly a key factor in homosexual relationships, and especially in homosexual marriages. But, I'm not referring to the reshaping of gender roles that inevitably takes place when two men, or two women, unite in a “loving relationship.” No, I'm talking about the redefinition of gender roles in heterosexual marriages that has been going on in this country since the late 1800s and continues to go on to this day.
Throughout his decision, Judge Walker referenced and discussed heterosexual gender roles and used them to justify his ruling that, under the Equal Protection Clause contained within in the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As I evaluated Judge Walker's argument (putting aside for a moment the fact that the major reason the judge disqualified Prop. 8 was because it did not meet the rational basis test, which, as anyone even remotely familiar with Constitutional Law knows, is a preposterous ruling; I'm also blocking out the judge's comparison of gays to African-Americans and Hispanics, which I find comical) in defense of gay marriage, I found that, to my amazement, he actually hit on a valid point.
The recent evolution of gender roles within the seemingly immutable confines of heterosexual marriages has done more to undermine the institution of traditional marriage and healthy families than any polygamist or homosexual could ever hope to or be accused of doing. Judge Walker's decision brings this point home, as one of his basic premises is that America's progression towards a genderless society has been a encouraging one.
Judge Walker surmised that the institution of marriage has undergone numerous and beneficial changes since the founding of America and that each of these changes has brought with it positive effects; thus, the legalization of gay marriage would simply follow in this advantageous succession (this reasoning is obviously flawed as it deploys the notorious logical fallacy of association - i.e. because all changes to marriage have been profitable, another change would also be profitable). These favorable marital modifications were: (1) the overthrow of male domination, (2) the legalization of bi-racial couples, and (3) the empowerment of women.
Now, let's attempt to get beyond Judge Walker's enormous fallacy of association and actually try to analyze what he is saying. Have these three changes truly been beneficial to the institution of marriage? I would say that at least 90% of American's would agree with the judge's conclusion in this regard. Of course bi-racial couples should be allowed to marry; of course women should be given equal rights and protections as men. And in these respects, I agree. Clearly a great sin of our nation's past was slavery and the racial discrimination that it engendered; another error, which I shall not go as far as to categorize as a sin and in so doing, place it on the same footing as slavery, was the inability of women to vote in this nation for some 140 years. There is no doubt that the practice of coverture (the wife lost her standing as a legal entity, as the husband absorbed whatever rights, property, or inheritance she once had) was an archaic one serving no tangible purpose within a marriage.
However, this being said (and assuming that the marital advantages of bi-racial freedom are indisputable), has the redefinition of gender roles within our society really been beneficial to the preservation and advancement of marriage? I would argue that, while some of these changes have indeed served that purpose, the majority of them have had a detrimental impact to the once sacred institution of marriage.
The overarching problem with my belief from a legal standpoint is that it emanates from a biblical perspective. The bible, a book which once held enormous authority in the American court system, has been all but thrown out and delegitimized. It, like a Christian worldview, is no longer welcomed, and in some cases, allowed in the court room. Judge Walker certainly did not allow it in his court room as he blamed religious fanaticism and moral prejudices for fostering discrimination and hatred towards gays and other minority groups. The judge's intellectualized secularism stands in stark contrast to the truth contained within the pages of the Bible, as it decimates the concept of God and objective morality by placing humanity at the pinnacle of creation. But, I'm going down on a rabbit trail, which I had not expected nor desired to tread upon (at least not yet).
Let's get back to why I believe that the 21st Century's reformation of gender roles in a pursuit of an asexual society has done more to harm than to help the institution of marriage. For starters, I believe that men and women, although both created in the image of God, were designed to fulfill different roles and perform separate tasks in their days upon this earth.
One need look no further than the second chapter of Genesis to discover this:
Genesis 2:20-22
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a man the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
Clearly, the woman was created to fulfill the role of helpmate to Adam. In today's society the very mention of this concept or the insinuation that women were created to compliment men meets with utter disgust and repugnance. This "archaic" understanding of gender roles is viewed as oppressive and odious. Sadly, the secularized, feminized, and uninformed onslaughts against biblical womanhood have done more to discredit the accomplishments of women throughout history and destroy the very essence of what it means to be a woman than any chauvinistic pig could ever dream to accomplish.
Does anyone even know what it means to be a woman anymore? Judge Walker doesn't. Does anybody have a definition? Judge Walker doesn't. Is there any real difference between men and women? Not according to Judge Walker. Do men and women serve different roles within a marriage relationship? Not according to Judge Walker. Can we really blame Judge Walker his lack of knowledge when it comes to distinguishing and ascertaining differences between the sexes? After all, the overarching mission of the feminist movement since receiving suffrage in 1920 has been to remove and strip away each and every remaining gender "discrepancy" from the public conscience. It has used several strategies to accomplish this end, the most prevalent being to propagate the message that women have been mistreated and held down since the beginning of time by the tyrannical regime of men, who at their very core are all chauvinistic ogres and sexual perverts (thank you Dr. Freud).
As the years flew by and this message became more and more ingrained into the American psyche, the feminist movement turned it's attention to the "oppressive" institution of marriage. As prominent feminist author and activist Robin Morgan wrote, "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage" (quote taken from Sisterhood is Powerful). And so with this goal in mind, the feminist movement laid siege to the precipices and bulwarks surrounding humanity's most basic and essential institution.
It did not take long for the movement to make a dent in the once impenetrable armor of marriage. The initial attack sprung from the teaching that serving in the role of helpmate was somehow insulting, inferior and not fulfilling. Feminists deployed the idea that women were "forced" to take care of the house and watch the children, while men got to go out into the world and experience new and exciting things. They derided the job of homemaker attempting to attach with it the stigma of male domination. Being a homemaker and raising children was no longer viewed as an admirable and noble pursuit; becoming rather an embarrassing admission of one's own simplicity and backwardness. Feminists attempted to change the age old concept of motherhood to mean something completely different then it once had. A mother was no longer a woman who stayed at home with her kids and made dinner for her husband when he got home from work; no, she was an educated and independent woman, totally self-sufficient and in need of no one's help. Marital bliss and the joys of children became associated with shackles and chains. In order to fulfill her traditional role in marriage (i.e. homemaker and nurturing mother), the modern woman had to sacrifice her career, dreams and very identity and lay them at the feet of her husband and children. The biblical mandate of procreation (Genesis 1:28) became a tangible example of an outdated book governing an outmoded religion and moral code.
Sexuality became the feminists next target, as they worked tirelessly to portray sexual intercourse within marriage as a symbol of bondage, equating it with slavery and even rape. Devout feminist Andrea Dworkin summed up the view of many feminists as she stated, "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." This viewpoint was supplemented by other feminists and members of the 1960's hippy movement who proposed that free love, or more aptly put, irresponsible, emotionless, casual sex devoid of any true meaning or consequences, was the ultimate release from bondage that women had been searching for (predictably, it has been this very outlook that has led to a startling rise in single-mother homes; as there is no such thing as consequence free sex). The sexual revolution brought with it a disintegration in the long held belief that sexual intercourse should only take place within the framework of a committed marriage relationship; fidelity became a curse.
As these beliefs took hold, the idea of what it meant to be a woman, and likewise, what it meant to be a man in a marriage union underwent a dramatic change. The husband lost his God-given role as the leader, provider and protector of the family entity (Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:23-32) as wives threw off the "restraints" of traditional marriage and assumed an identical role. Mainstream pop culture jumped on the bandwagon and began to portray men as bumbling, sex obsessed idiots and women as their intellectual superiors and saviors; the term marriage became synonymous with a stupid dad and a smart mom. More and more men began to relinquish their role as the bread winner, as women rushed from their homes, as if escaping from prison camps, and into the work force. At first some men objected to this transition, but with the changing tide of public opinion (or more accurately, perceived public opinion) and the realization that two incomes could buy more toys than one, men soon were more than content to relinquish their marital responsibilities.
As a result, America's youth grew up as latch-key kids raised by TV and video games if their parents were lucky, and sex, pornography, gangs, crime and drugs if they weren't (needless to say, teenage pregnancies and abortions both increased spectacularly toward the end of the 21st Century). Stable and nurturing households and marriages slowly began to evaporate and dissolve as the stress of having two bread winners, no distinguishable leader, mutable sexual roles and dealing with disobedient, disrespectful, neglected and unruly children led to a skyrocketing increase in divorce rates. Surely a house divided against itself can not stand (Matthew 12:25); American marriages have proved this true countless times over the past 50 years.
And that pretty much brings us to the present; America in the year 2010 and Judge Walker's refutation of Proposition 8. In his decision Judge Walker described Proposition 8's exclusion of gays from marriage as “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage”; concluding, “That time has passed.” Who would dare dispute this claim? Who could?
In redefining the traditional and biblical roles of men and women, the feminist movement has created an inexplainable and laughable intellectual atmosphere in which clear sexual distinctions are intentionally dismissed and ignored in the name of equality. In casting off the “shackles” of male oppression, children and family ties, feminism has enslaved millions of women to their careers. Despite continually expounding asseverations affirming the power and prowess of femininity, the feminist movement has lost sight of what it truly means to be a woman and in so doing, it has destroyed the very meaning of the word (as it did with masculinity). In essence, the feminist movement has transformed women into men, the very creatures they purport to despise most, as it has created a post-gender asexual society. In this climate, the age old institutions of marriage, family and parenthood have been all but destroyed. The rise of divorce, single-parent homes, abortions, latch-key kids, neglected children, teenage suicide rates, teenage pregnancies, drug use, child molestation, depression, confused children, domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, crime, gang membership and murder can all be tied directly to the growth of gender-neutral heterosexual marriages.
I don't believe in homosexual marriage; I don't believe that it portrays a biblical and traditional view of marriage; I don't believe that it is morally acceptable; I don't believe that it is conducive to child rearing. That being said, until Americans return to a biblical understanding of heterosexual marriage (and a biblical perspective regarding all aspects of life for that matter), the institution of “traditional” marriage, and the very foundation of this society, will continue to crumble regardless of what happens in the Proposition 8 debate.
Posts
