Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Washes Away Values We Hold Dear
Last Friday, federal District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled that Tennessee must recognize as valid the same-sex marriage of three couples that moved here after being married in a state that allows same-sex marriage. In so ruling, she noted the “rising tide” of support for same-sex marriage. It is a rising tide, but it is one that will wash away more things than the institution of marriage.
Washing Away State Sovereignty
The state, in its brief in support of Tennessee’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman, tried to tell Judge Trauger that to rule against the state was “an affront to its sovereignty” and would make our public policy on marriage “subservient to that of other states.” She apparently didn’t care.
But how, you might ask, does forcing Tennessee to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state “wash away” our state’s sovereignty?
The answer to that question requires an understanding of the issue raised in the case. The issue was whether the U.S. Constitution required Tennessee to accept as valid marriages from other states that would not be valid if performed here. The judge said, “Yes.”
But in saying “yes,” the judge made Tennessee’s policies on marriage subject to whatever form of marriage some other state may legalize. Tennessee will no longer have any control over what marriage will mean in our state. That is an abrogation of our sovereignty.
Consider the fact that a federal judge in Utah has already taken the first step toward validating polygamous marriages. According to Judge Trauger’s rationale, Tennessee may one day have to accept and validate polygamous marriages. There is no other conclusion she can reach. And who knows what California may come up with some day?
Washing Away Civilization
To assert that judges, by redefining marriage, are washing away civilization itself seems ludicrous. But the research of Dr. J.D. Unwin, professor of ethnology and social anthropology at Oxford and Cambridge, suggests that one should proceed slowly in rejecting that possibility.
Dr. Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and six known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. His results were published in 1934 in his book Sex and Culture.
Dr. Unwin wrote: “Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”
In other words, the energy it takes to create and maintain a great civilization does not exist in a society that has chosen to “enjoy sexual freedom.”
His research also showed that societies that rest on sexual freedom never recover their civilizing energy: “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”
Of course, in describing “nuptial,” Dr. Unwin was not considering same-sex nuptials inasmuch as those relationships were (and still are) inherently sterile, incapable of even producing a “next generation.”
Sadly, the polls show millennials overwhelmingly reject a monogamous sexual ethic.
The bottom line is that a civilized society’s days are numbered if it rejects a sexual ethic that values sexual restraint and monogamy.
So, contrary to what Judge Trauger and the proponents of same-sex marriage want us to believe, those who want to redefine marriage to fit their no-boundaries sexual ethic are the ones on the “wrong side of history.”