Matt Birk, of the Baltimore Ravens, seems to be having an ongoing debate with a team-mate on the issue of gay marriage. He’s against it, and he wants to make sure you know that, and also make sure you know that not all football players support same sex marriage. Admittedly, his argument against gay marriage (primarily: think of the children!) is less hateful and bigoted than most, and for that he deserves credit.
But, I have yet to see anything which supports the notion that children raised by two loving mothers or two loving fathers are in any way disadvantaged over those raised by two opposite sex parents. Nor is there any reason to believe (and indeed plenty of reasons to disbelieve) that a child will be better off raised by a single parent rather than two, if those two happen to be of the same sex. The “think of the children” argument just falls flat. There is nothing there. Birk writes:
Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children — the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.
Though I disagree, this is perfectly fair, and I do give him quite a bit of credit for the part I’ve bolded. That seems to be a point that most who oppose same sex marriage can’t quite grasp.
I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as “bigots” and “homophobic.” Aren’t we past that as a society?
In Birk’s case, no, it does not seem that his argument as much as I disagree with it is based in bigotry or (to a much lesser extent) homophobia. But many, I would think most in fact, are. Very much so. Until we are past that as a society, we won’t be past pointing it out. Freedom of speech comes with consequences, and making a bigoted argument can and should result in your being labelled a bigot.
I don’t think Birk makes anything remotely close to a compelling case in his editorial, but in the last two paragraphs he completely gives up the game. First:
A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.
This necessarily implies that marriage is not a basic human right. Otherwise, how could there be “no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman”. But if that is so, and marriage is not a basic right, then it is a right granted by whom? The church? That’s fine, but it has no bearing on public policy (I know, I know, but it shouldn’t). The government? Legally that’s the case. But what then could possibly be the basis for granting it to one group over another? I see none. Birk presumably sees the protection of children as a legitimate basis for that discrimination, but the burden of proof lies on him, and he has failed it. I certainly agree with Birk (and Thomas Jefferson) that all people have inalienable rights. Birk would do well to finish reading that sentence! I’ll remind him:
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
As Birk himself argues, all people should be afforded their basic American rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The freedom to marry whomever you like, in my opinion, would fall under liberty, and it would most certainly fall under pursuing happiness. But by citing the declaration, not only does Birk inadvertently argue in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry, he argues that government should ensure that right! We have instituted government not to deny these rights, as Birk supports via a traditional marriage amendment, but to secure them.
Birk closes:
I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.
I agree, wholeheartedly, with the entirety of this paragraph. I can’t imagine what could possibly be more pro-marriage than allowing people to get married.
520 Chestnut 
Leave a Reply