The proverbial last shoe finally fell on the floor on June 26 when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, ruled in a narrow 5-to-4 split vote that there is no less than a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married, and that such marriages must be recognized in all 50 American states.
The world, it seems, has been engaged in debate in the aftermath of this decision.
Most of us end up with either a supportive or an oppositional stance, with middle positions proving increasingly indefensible.
Ideally, debates would feature the use of logic to try to convince others of the soundness and reasonableness of one’s point of view.
These debates, however, have been plagued (on both sides) with many logical errors and fallacies, ranging from ad hominem attacks to non sequiturs.
Of these, I would like to bring attention to what appears to be most consequential, a fallacy that is as devious as it is difficult to spot.
I am referring to the fallacy of equivocation. In any intellectual engagement, all parties must have the same idea regarding the terms that they use.
Otherwise, they will never arrive at any fair or intelligent conclusion because they were never talking about the same thing, even though they might have used the same words.
If two people argue about whether or not evening light is good, for example, and the first person understands the term “evening light” to mean light that is from the moon and the stars, but the other one uses the same term to mean light from fluorescent and incandescent bulbs, there is an equivocation.
And such has happened on the question of same-sex marriage.
There is a huge, albeit seemingly unnoticed, difference as to what marriage itself means in the first place. On one hand, the US Supreme Court understands marriage to mean “a voluntary contract between a man and a woman” (see Obergefell page 6). This is observably the view of most people, especially of those within the pro-gay marriage movement.
Working with this understanding of marriage, it makes sense that the main legal argument for same-sex marriage in America is Section 1 of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
The text itself reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In a nutshell, this means that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated the same way, enjoying the same rights and privileges.
If a class of subjects are alike in essence or substance, they must not be treated differently, such that some within the same classification are favored while others are deprived.
This is why, for example, people who earn the same income are subject to the same rate of income tax: it would be unjust and unfair to impose a lower rate to some, and a higher rate to others when they are all similarly-situated as to income.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, if marriage is simply a voluntary contract between two individuals, then it stands to reason that the right to marry must also apply to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals since all are similarly-situated in terms of the capacity to enter into contracts, as well as the capacity to show love and fidelity.
This is why advocates of gay marriage can feel a genuine sense that history is moving forward in the right direction.
If marriage is only a civil reality, it does appear to echo previous civil rights movements for equality for blacks and for women.
On the other hand, for those who object to gay marriage on religious ground, including myself, the institution of marriage is not merely a voluntary contract for love and fidelity: it is a spiritual reality ordained by the Creator to be entered into only between one man and one woman, a union that civil government may be able to recognize, but certainly may not redefine.
I will not speak for those from other religions, but I will try to articulate and demonstrate the Christian position that the Bible views gay marriage as morally-impermissible.
Of course, there are those who view Christianity as being affirming of gay marriage. But what follows in the next few paragraphs is the general line of thought explaining why and how the Bible condemns same-sex marriage. While not as comprehensive as it could be, it will deal with at least two significant explanations.
First, the single most important reason why God created and gifted us the institution of marriage is that it is meant to represent and foreshadow the relationship of Christ to His bride, the church.
As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:31-32 ESV).
Hence, the first reason why Christians cannot, in good conscience, agree with same-sex marriage is because the God who created marriage has set limits as to who and how many may enter into marriage (that is, one man and one woman) to reflect the reality and mystery of Christ and His bride.
This is true regardless if the marrying couple is Christian or otherwise: it is not just the religious aspect of marriage that God established in Genesis, but rather, the universal idea of marriage itself.
It is a gift not just for Jews or Christians but for all people to enjoy. So that when heterosexual Mormons and Muslims get married, the marriage is still according to how God intended it (i.e. between a man and a woman).
From the first marriage in Genesis between Adam and Eve to the last marriage in Revelation between Christ and the church, the understanding of marriage has always been expressed between one male and one female.
God in His infinite wisdom and prerogative chooses to reveal Himself using masculine forms (e.g. Father, Son, He, Him, His), and refers to the bride in the feminine.
Second, God in Scripture reveals that homosexual acts are no less than sin.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27 ESV).
Recently, an idea had been making the rounds in social media that this was not meant to be a condemnation of homosexuality per se, but that Paul was referring to the practice of homosexual prostitution.
Rereading the same passage, however, shows no sign that these homosexual practices were forced.
On the contrary, being “consumed with passion for one another” denotes a high degree of willfulness and free enjoyment of homosexual acts, far from what would be the case in prostitution or abuse. And these are nonetheless condemned in Scripture as “dishonorable passions,” i.e. sin.
There are even those who might concede that Scripture clearly teaches against homosexuality, but that the Bible should evolve with changing times to remain relevant.
But Scripture is clear about itself: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV).
Scripture is as infallible as it is sufficient, being from no less than God, who Himself does not change with the times we make.
Of course, none of this is politically-correct in this post-modern age. But the perspective of the Christian is that between the laws of God and the laws of men, we are taught by Christ to “not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28 ESV).
And if the world gives us no other choice, we affirm with the Apostle Peter, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29 ESV).
What is also usually hurled at conservatives is that holding on to such beliefs fails at the Christian calling to show love to all, including gays.
But we forget that in Christianity (because of the character of God) the good, the beautiful, the loving, and the true are all the same thing. Christians, while maintaining respect, show more love when they hold on to, and continue, what they know to be the truth.
And the chilling conclusion to the Obergefell case touches exactly on the religious folks who will remain opposed to same-sex marriage due to faith.
The decision reads: “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. … The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”
This means that because gay marriage is now no less than a hallowed constitutional right in America, churches within the territory might still be able to teach and engage in debates against same-sex marriage, but they can never refuse to perform, accommodate, and recognize gay marriage without incurring legal prosecution and retaliation from the state. And the same will be true within schools, businesses, hospitals, homes, and public places.
Hence, with no intention of fear-mongering, and with a sober mind, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a very real and well-founded fear for religious conservatives to experience persecution in the United States in the name of gay rights for the faith that they have.
So while we are not talking about the same kind of marriage, it seems we are going to pay for it anyway.
___________________________________
Micah Dagaerag is a member of SU College of Law batch 2015, currently finishing the final draft of his thesis. He was editor-in-chief of Silliman Law Journal; a Wings of Excellence Essay awardee of St. Gallen of Switzerland; the Philippine champion in the International Humanitarian Law Moot Court Competition of the International Committee of the Red Cross; a former senior debater of the SU Debate Society; and now an active Elder at Silliman University Church.
