|
For decades,
James Dobson has dedicated himself to the honorable work of strengthening
families. I greatly respect his efforts. I have even gained from
some, including reading his book, What Wives Wish Their Husbands
Knew About Women. My wife and I even visited the Focus on the
Family headquarters, in Colorado Springs, on our second anniversary.
We were vacationing in Vail and made a day trip of visiting Focus
and the Air Force Academy. Unfortunately, on many political issues,
I believe Dobson is gravely misguided. The Federal Marriage Amendment
is one such issue.
James Dobson wrote an article, "Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex
Marriage," which was published on the Focus on the Family website
(opens new browser). In this paper, I have taken each of his arguments
and shown his errors. Each point in bold is one of his "eleven
arguments." Under each argument, I have placed Dobson's exact,
quoted statements to the left. My statements are to the right.
|
| 1.
The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional
family. |
|
When the State
sanctions homosexual relationships…the younger generation becomes
confused about sexual identity…and from a spiritual perspective,
the 'sanctity' of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of
a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience,
but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis.
|
This
portrays the primary fallacy of many Marriage Amendment supporters.
They believe that the government is responsible for and capable of
creating Christianity. When Dobson writes that he wants government
to teach spiritual sanctity and Genesis theology, he is departing
from the very foundation of the United States, which was formed under
the wisdom that government religion is always harmful to the gospel.
If Dobson wants to question that, I would ask him to name one Christian
government that consistently enforced good theology. It was the Church
of England whose persecution led the Puritans to America. It was Luther's
Germany that slaughtered countless Catholics? It was the Pontiff's
Italy that literally sold forgiveness?
|
|
The ACLU…suggested
that the state will 'have to step up to prove that a polygamous
relationship is detrimental to society' - as opposed to the polygamists
having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture.
Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend
the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy.
|
Again, Dobson
displays ignorance of Constitutional values. Dobson believes he
(using government force) has an inherent right to control others,
without the need to justify himself. He believes others need to
prove they should be free from control. America does not have a
king. People under kings are literally "subjects," owned
and controlled by the will of the king. The US government was designed
to guarantee the people are free and control government.
|
|
With marriage
as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits
of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership
of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more)….
What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or
everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose
its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.
|
This is where
Dobson's ignorance and hypocrisy culminate. The Declaration of
Independence states that people are created with freedoms and
that people form governments to protect those freedoms. If the people
disagree with government actions, the people have an inherent right
to change or even destroy the government, replacing it with a better
government. Therefore, government can have no "compelling interests."
The people have interests—in freedom—and form governments
solely to protect that freedom. The legal doctrine of "compelling
interests" is a 20th century, court-created idea to limit
freedom. Courts have ruled that sometimes the desires of politicians
are more important than the Constitutional rights of Americans,
and therefore rights do not always apply. "Compelling interests,"
in other words, are a product of judicial activism. That means Dobson
is using a judicial activist doctrine to support his Amendment,
which he claims is needed because of judicial activism.
|
| 2.
Children will suffer most. |
If
present trends continue, the majority of children will have several
"moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents,"
and dozens of half-siblings…. How would you like to be a new
husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight
mother-in-laws.
|
This
is essentially the Bill Clinton argument: "It's all for the children."
However, his real argument is based on the emotional appeal, "How
would you like…eight mother-in-laws." This is not a legal,
Constitutional, or biblical argument. It is a red-herring—a diversion.
|
| 3.
Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality. |
Textbooks, even
in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman
relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary
school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis
to homosexuals.
|
This has been
happening for some time and without legalized gay marriage. It is
happening because social values are changing, and the Amendment won't
change those values. Furthermore, this is an issue controlled by local
school boards, not marriage laws. School boards choose textbooks and
marriage laws will not force boards to depict gay marriage. School
boards will promote gay marriage only if their constituents want them
to do so, and the Amendment is not going to change the constituents.
|
| 4.
Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete. |
Children will
be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal
basis with those having a mom and a dad.
|
Mothers considering
adoption may always choose private agencies. Current laws are already
loosening in many states to allow gay or single adoption, and this
is happening irrespective of marriage laws. And unless Dobson is adopting
the numerous children waiting for adoption, his righteousness is hollow.
|
| 5.
Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically. |
Foster-care parents
will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid
themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm
homosexuality in children and teens.
|
Foster parents
are employees of the government and therefore may always be required
to inflict government policy. But, again, this is already happening
because of changing social values and the fact that people such as
Dobson have allowed the government to create social policy under the
banner of "compelling interests." Dobson's real pain is
that decades of his work have not reversed the tide of decadence in
society and he is still not pulling the strings of his own puppet
government. The Amendment won't help Dobson.
|
| 6.
The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse. |
This could be
the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western
nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage.
Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive
the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some
analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated;
even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in
business…. Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don't know.
|
This, too, is
neither a legal, Constitutional, nor biblical argument. This is a
greed argument. He is advocating opposition to gay marriage because
it might cost us money. However, he ignores that the swiftly
increasing number of companies already offering domestic partner benefits
has not resulted in a "threefold increase in premiums."
Further, Dobson is appealing to the fear and prejudices of homophobia.
He doesn't discuss the costs of gays with cancer or heart disease,
which are vastly more common and costly. He highlights HIV.
|
| 7.
Social Security will be severely stressed. |
What
will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy?
If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must
rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these
draconian possibilities as we careen toward "a brave new world"?
|
Again,
this is a fear-based financial appeal to his base audience. The fact
is, Social Security is going bankrupt with or without gay marriage.
Dobson is ignoring the much greater financial injustice that government
has forcibly taken nearly 15% of Americans' earnings and assigned
the money to a flawed system. Social Security is itself a draconian,
"brave new world" policy and a much better example of what
Aldous Huxley feared when we wrote Brave New World in the 1930s.
Social Security is a product of the New Deal and the era's socialist
ideals that moved federal government out of protecting "unalienable
rights," such as "the pursuit of happiness," and into
the realm of promising to make people happy by taking care of them
and providing for them.
|
| 8.
Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized. |
Canada is leading
the way on this revolutionary path. I could cite dozens of examples
indicating that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed,
on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed bill C 250, which effectively
criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality.
|
America is entirely
different from Canada. Unlike Canada, we chose to revolt against England
because we wanted to secure our rights to religious freedom. Of course,
there is a very real possibility that the courts may rule that government's
"compelling interests" in preventing "hate-speech"
is more important than Christians' rights to freedom of religion and
expression. This is only possible because of the judicial activism
that Dobson supported in argument 1.
|
| 9.
Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and
will follow our lead. |
Marriage among
homosexuals will spread throughout the world…. [which is] carefully
monitoring what is happening in the United States. If we take this
step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an
accelerated rate. Conversely, our Supreme Court has made it clear
that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of
our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for
impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
|
I'm confused.
Canada is leading the way (see argument 8), while the world is watching
and waiting for America? Beyond that confusion, what legal or Constitutional
doctrine is Dobson using to demand that US domestic law be the safeguard
for "every continent"? And if the problem is Congress's
passivity and silence, why is the answer to ask Congress to amend
the Constitution? Why not invest our efforts into electing representatives
who will impeach judges, solving not only the gay marriage issue,
but a host of other issues?
|
| 10.
The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. |
The family has
been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning….
That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover
from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation
and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already
occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries.
|
Why would gay
marriage result in "the loss of committed, God-fearing families"?
Would such families become gay? Christian families have existed in
every modern society, including the most theologically repressive,
such as China and Saudi Arabia. Further, is Dobson suggesting that
prior to the gay rights movement of the last few decades, France and
Germany were filled with the Good News? European countries significantly
lost the gospel long before gay rights, and they lost it despite many
having official, state-sponsored, Christian churches, which were intended
to teach "the 'sanctity' of marriage" and "the intimacy
described in Genesis" that Dobson asked American government to
teach in argument 1. Ironically, the gospel historically thrives most
when denied government support. As the early church theologian Tertullian
wrote, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
America is the most religious industrialized nation in the world precisely
because we keep government out of religious matters. Dobson's plan
to create a church-state partnership is more likely than gay marriage
to have a negative impact on the gospel's influence, just as church-state
partnerships did in Europe.
|
| 11.
The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become "as
it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37). |
This
is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and
future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic
view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist
to many, but I think it will prove accurate…. This reticence
on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament
designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between
Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral
and wrong.
|
Is
Dobson suggesting that if only we try hard enough, we can prevent
Jesus' prophecy from coming true? Even if Dobson is not committing
heresy, he is utterly misinterpreting the Bible. Jesus said, "As
it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son
of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came
and took them all away" (Mt 24:37-39a, NIV). Jesus was saying
that the people, not knowing that the end was near, were living life
normally. Similarly, people will be living normally—not knowing
the end is near—when Jesus returns. Further, when he writes that
marriage is "a metaphor between Christ and His church,"
does he offer any explanation of where government is included? Did
God create a county clerk to certify the marriage of Adam and Eve?
If we conclude that God's creation of marriage occurred without any
reference to or suggestion of government, can we also conclude that
Dobson's demand government be involved is effectively "tampering
with His plan for the family," which Dobson declares, "immoral
and wrong"?
|
|
James Dobson is not advocating any sort of adherence to the Constitution,
to the Bible, or to his own stated moral beliefs. Dobson is making
demands that his passing and conflicting values, his desires, and
his way of life literally be forced onto other people through the
law. When Jesus commanded his disciples to "go and make
disciples" (Mt 28:29, NIV, italics mine), I don't think that
is what he meant.
|