Marriage Is Not Meant for Same-Sex Couples

Californians are playing out a drama whose outcome will be applauded and reviled from coast to coast. By the end of the day March 7, Proposition 22--which states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”--will be either law or history.

If it wins, some people will claim this is the beginning of the end for gay rights. If it loses, other people will claim this is the beginning of the end for marriage. Could both sides be wrong?

Proposition 22 is actually quite modest. It will not repeal any gay rights laws in California. All it does is allow voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and try to prevent the meaning of marriage from being decided by the courts.

Some people claim that Proposition 22 is unnecessary because California law is already clear. While that is true in terms of the law within the state, it is not true about the about the recognition of out-of-state marriages. California has a strong tradition of recognizing out-of-state marriages. For instance, in the late 1940s, the California Supreme Court recognized interracial marriages long in advance of some states and the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a long-standing and noble tradition. Attempts will be made to use that tradition to redefine marriage.

What’s the hurry? Critics note that no country yet recognizes same-sex “marriages.” Yes, but there is a nationwide campaign to do so, and it’s moving ahead full-tilt.

Courts in Hawaii and Alaska have already come close to legalizing same-sex marriage. The voters of those two states stopped their courts by decisive margins. Now the Vermont Supreme Court has told the state Legislature to either legalize same-sex marriage or grant equivalent domestic rights to same-sex couples. Debate is fierce in Vermont.

In any case, the Netherlands may well legalize same-sex marriage in the next year. When I checked last week, a round-trip ticket from LAX to Amsterdam was cheaper than one to Burlington, Vt. Meanwhile the Canadian Supreme Court is not far behind the Netherlands. Wherever same-sex couples get married, when they return to California, if their marriage is not recognized, some will file suit, and the decision will be left up to the courts.

Once before the courts, California’s farsighted effort to recognize interracial marriage will be used to support same-sex marriage. If out-of-state marriages are recognized, soon enough, gay couples wanting to marry in-state will file suit, claiming that they are being treated “separate but equal” compared to those who married in Amsterdam or wherever.

Still, so what? How would validating or recognizing same-sex marriage in California hurt anybody?

Once we clear away all the smoke screens put up by opponents to Proposition 22, this is the question: Do the people of California want to reaffirm marriage or redefine it? That’s what the March 7 election is about.

Putting aside the religious and philosophical debates about marriage for a moment, what evidence is available from social science research that might help us here? There are roughly two bodies of purported research. The first, which is promoted by gay and lesbian groups, claims to have found “no difference” between opposite-sex and same-sex parenting. Yet the studies I have seen have serious methodological flaws. The second body of research, which is more generally accepted by social scientists across the political spectrum, has to do with marriage and parenting. This research confirms that children do best with two parents, and that the absence of a father or a mother can make a lasting difference in a child’s development.

You don’t have to be a bigot, as opponents to Proposition 22 are saying, to wager that if the absence of a parent makes a negative difference, then the presence of a mother and a father might make a positive difference. And you don’t have to be hateful to conclude that officially redefining marriage to treat all couples as equivalent might not be what’s best for children.

It’s one thing to be compassionate toward people who are exceptions to the norm. It’s another thing to redefine the norm.

If Proposition 22 wins, same-sex couples and their kids will be no better or worse off than now. And if Proposition 22 fails, it will not be the end of marriage; we need not be apocalyptic. The failure of Proposition 22, however, will open the door to more problems down the line.

On balance, I believe Proposition 22 is a good, positive move. It offers an opportunity for Californians to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. Because California is California, moreover, this reaffirmation will have significance far beyond the borders of the Golden State.