Centuries ago, Aristotle wisely challenged the social re-engineering plans of his teacher Plato. He cautioned, “Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of ages.” As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, Aristotle’s wisdom resounds through time.
Aristotle rejected Plato’s idealistic “Republic,” which would have remolded traditional families, embraced eugenics, and rearranged the entire order of society, creating a cascade of ethical dilemmas from the loss of private property to multiple state-arranged “marriages” to incestuous relationships. Aristotle understood that such experimentation came at great cost. Radically altering the norms of society has consequences, intended and unintended.
Whether today’s experiment with same-sex unions is contained at the state level or not, such experiments extract an enormous price from society. Wherever marriage is redefined to require the inclusion of same-sex unions, the law will denigrate traditional marriage and will penalize those who insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Competing claims about marriage will never exist in harmony, and the battleground will be in our day care centers, schools, churches, civic organizations, workplaces and all our government institutions.
Should DOMA fall, it will pit state against state. Though some states will maintain the traditional definition of marriage, if federal law allows a counterfeit definition to include same-sex “marriage,” then states like Georgia would still be required to subsidize the federal costs in states that have embraced the new practice. If same-sex unions were to have the force of federal law behind them within the tax code and government programs, there is little that could prevent the federal government from mandating that all our civic and social institutions, or even private businesses, make accommodations in parallel fashion.
As is already being observed in states that have redefined marriage, people who express the view that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman will find that their freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be judged as pernicious forms of marriage discrimination.
Non-profits that uphold the exclusive claim of marriage between one man and one woman will risk their tax-exempt status. Public employees who reject the idea of same-sex marriage will be forced to undergo sensitivity training or risk being fired from their jobs. Business owners may risk being sued if they refuse to bake wedding cakes or print invitations or take pictures for same-sex ceremonies. Public schools, all of which take federal funds, may be forced to incorporate instruction about same-sex marriage against the religious convictions of parents.
DOMA rightly recognizes marriage as the ageless institution created between one man and one woman. Those claiming marriage equality for same-sex partners are making an unjust claim on territory that is not theirs. This is evident because the claim can only be had at great expense to others and the whole of society. Americans should consider the dangerous consequences of redefining such a fundamental institution as marriage. We disregard such costs at our peril.