July 8, 2004

In De-Lovely, the new film about songwriter Cole Porter's life, Porter

tells his wife, Linda, about his homosexuality. Linda, who is the

inspiration behind his genius, tells him that his music comes from his

talent not from his destructive behavior. But she does beg Porter to give

up his scandalous behavior so as "not to put us at jeopardy," a promise

Porter isn't prepared to make.

The prospect of a marriage where children, permanence, and fidelity are in

doubt is supposed to make us pity Linda Porter, even if she was complicit

in her own plight. After all, who would opt for such an arrangement? Well,

according to one scholar, many Americans have. And understanding how and

why this is the case is crucial to understanding the push for same-sex

"marriages."

According to Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, homosexuals

don't want marriage, at least not marriage as understood for most of the

past two millennia. They want what "marriage has become" as a result of

cultural changes and bad policy choices.

Historically speaking, marriage was an institution "defined by religious

doctrine, moral tradition, home-centered commitments to child rearing, and

gender complementarity . . . " Today, it is a "highly individualistic and

egalitarian institution." Marriage no longer "[implies] commitment to home,

to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even

(permanently) to spouse," so writes Christensen.

Traditionally, the "husband-wife bond" was defined by "mutual sacrifice and

cooperative labor." But that has been replaced by "dual-careerist vistas of

self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction."

According to Christensen, no one should be surprised that homosexuals want

"the strange new thing marriage has become." After all, "contemporary

marriage . . . certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American

culture." In addition, it "delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and

governmental benefits."

And, best of all, from the homosexual's perspective, it does all of these

things "without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage."

If childbearing, sexual fidelity, and permanence are no longer central to

our culture's understanding of marriage, but the benefits are the same, why

not agitate for marriage?

Christensen says that it would be a mockery to issue marriage license to

couples who, by definition, "can never have children," "will not resist the

temptations to extramarital affairs, and will not preserve their union for

a lifetime."

But, as he reminds us, this mockery of wedlock started "decades ago." It

started when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples started "buying

basset hounds rather than bassinets; started indulging in extramarital

affairs; and started fulfilling divorce attorneys' dreams of avarice." The

result was marriages that more closely resembled the one depicted in

De-Lovely than the traditional model.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight the attempt to extend the

marriage franchise to same-sex couples. It's still a mockery of a sacred

institution. But it does mean that our efforts should be part of what

Christensen calls a "broader effort to restore moral and religious

integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution."

Until that happens, marriage, regardless of who gets a marriage license,

will remain an institution in jeopardy.