My Beliefs About Same Sex Unions

BACK

If someone asked me about same-sex marriage, my answer would be what follows in this essay. But people won’t sit for this whole explanation, so I might just say "I'm against the state sanctioning of same-sex unions as marriage." But my answer won’t fit on a bumper sticker or in a sound bite, so if you have the time to read it, then here is my complete answer, with my reasons. And you will see (even if you do not agree) that my belief is well-reasoned, somewhat complex, and consistent with the historical teaching of Christianity (although recently some denominations have come to different understandings about marriage). I start with Mother Nature, move on to anthropology (the study of human society) and finish with how my religion informs my decision.

Biology teaches us that organisms developed into male and female for the propagation of the species. The advantage of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction is that it promotes biological diversity by scrambling the gene pool with each successive generation to avoid reinforcing undesirable genetic combinations and leaving open the possibility of new combinations that enhance the survival of the species. And further development in sexual reproduction is the differentiation of function between male and female. Each has a separate but complimentary set of instinctive functions that enhance the survivability of the species. The division of the tasks in the rearing and protection of the young has conferred a survival advantage so powerful that this division has become universal among higher species. Only relatively primitive species such as sponges, jellyfish and microbes still employ asexual reproduction. And human beings, the pinnacle of evolution (to borrow Darwinist language) employ sexual reproduction and the division of tasks in the rearing and protection of the young.

The sexual distinctions are not just physiological, but through differences in brain structure and chemistry go to the deepest levels of human psychology. There is a best selling book called “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,” that goes into details about the psychological differences between men and women, and how it affects the way men and women interact with each other. Medical research has confirmed differences in brain structure, hormone levels and other physiological differences between men and women. Radical feminists may want to deny these differences, but they are there. Being different is not to be better or inferior, it is simply to be different. It is respect for the dignity of men as men and women as women to acknowledge and understand these differences, and to respect them in the way we live. They are part of our human nature.

Indeed, researchers are coming around to the understanding that gender is the most fundamental distinction between adult humans, more so than race. Indeed, genetic differences between the races have been discovered to be less significant than other differences between members of the same so-called races, such as hair color, height, body shape and other physical characteristics. A recent article in Scientific American stated:

Anne Moir and David Jessel, in their groundbreaking book “Brain Sex“ assert that the differences in psychology between the sexes shows up in infants:

These differences are not just physical, but mental. Given how deeply ingrained are these physical and mental sexual differences between men and women, and how they drive behavior, it is intellectual blindness to understand same-sex attraction as anything but abnormal. Keep in mind at this point that “abnormal” is not a moral judgment, but a statistically valid generalization. It runs contrary to the natural impulses and physical design of the human organism and the self-evident way in which men and women are designed to function. It bears repeating at this point in the discussion that to say something is abnormal is not necessarily to declare that it is wrong. But understanding the physical and psychological aspects of the human organism is the starting point on reaching a rational understanding about same-sex unions.

Therefore we must start with the acknowledgement that the human sexual apparatus, and everything about the human organism including the minds of men and women, are designed (whether one believes it was designed by God or evolved according to Darwin) to function between male and female. This much is obvious. Anyone who does not understand this point needs to go back to Biology 101. And it is also obvious that anything else, specifically same sex union, requires the parties thereto to use their bodies in a way not intended by Nature (or Nature’s God). Intended? How do we know the intention of Nature, if I may anthropomorphize it for a moment? Simple: form follows function. Which parts of the body function in sexual union and which parts of the body function for other purposes? The answer is again obvious. And it is obvious in what way the human body is designed to function sexually. Same-sex activity, therefore, is not normal or natural. This much is self-evident. Anyone who does not see that need to think about the human sexual apparatus, how it functions, and how other physiological differences between men and women best function before they can proceed to the next step in the discussion.

Again, moral judgments do not necessarily follow from the biological observations. At this stage of the discussion all I am asserting is that the human species is among those in the animal kingdom that reproduce and rear their young through the complimentary roles and functions of the male and female. Any sexual activity between members of the same gender is not in conformity with the universal physiology and psychology of male and female within the animal kingdom.

But Man is more than just an animal. We are sentient (self-aware) and capable of abstract thought. And we survive by intelligence, and some unique traits among the Animal Kingdom such as speech and advanced tool-making capability. True, some monkeys and mammals like otters use sticks or rocks as basic tools, but none of these has created anything like the ax, the wheel, the Space Shuttle or the ‘57 Chevy. And while many animals have a limited repertoire of sounds with which they can communicate basic information, nothing comes close to the precision and versatility of human speech.

The physical structure that makes this all possible is the brain, which in the human infant is proportionately larger compared to body size than the brain of any other mammal. Indeed, the large brain size requires enormous biological energy for both the pregnant mother (whose body is building the baby in her womb) and for the infant after it is born. A great deal of biological energy in an infant is spent in growing the brain, even after birth. The body is still underdeveloped and vulnerable at this stage, i.e. babies can’t walk, so they can’t escape from a saber toothed tiger. Other mammals are born able to walk and run within days of birth and are not as vulnerable. Also, humans operate on thought more than instinct, and it takes a considerable amount of time for the baby to develop its intellectual skills, and other vital skills like language and tool-making, during which time it is also vulnerable. Where, then is the survival advantage of human intelligence if human babies are relatively defenseless compared to the young of other species?

The advantage lies in how humans have developed families, and how those families in turn form communities. The compensation for the increased vulnerability of babies is for human infants to get more care from their parents than the young of other species. And as in other species, the mother and father developed different traits to compliment each other in the raising of the children. Females, of course, nurse the children. Males developed strong upper bodies for the hunt and the defense of the tribe. Women developed a nurturing psychology to compliment the physical functions. Men developed the object-oriented psychology to assist in going out on the hunt and the strategic skills necessary for the protection of the females and children. And nothing causes a young man or woman to mature faster than the birth of a child. Deeply imbedded parenting instincts are triggered, and all but the most degenerate focus their lives on raising the children, sacrificing for the children, and caring about them long after they have grown up. This is the nature of human beings.

This observation moves us into the realm of Anthropology. And anthropological studies have found a universal pairing of male and female in human societies consistent with their inborn natural tendencies. Every society has marriage, and a family structure in which the men and women play complimentary roles. If there ever were societies that did not pair adults in this way, they did not survive to pass this on to their descendents, implying their arrangement did not contribute to the survival of their tribes as well as the arrangement of male-female.

Women took on jobs that could be interrupted to care for the children, such as gathering nuts and fruit, getting water, and managing the household chores. Men took on jobs that could not be interrupted, such as hunting and defending the tribe. You can stop gathering berries to feed a hungry baby, but if you stop chasing that zebra because of the baby, the zebra will get away and there goes dinner. And they took on gathering and scouting functions that would take them further from the tribe’s home base such as defending the tribe. Indeed, an attacking tribe or pack of wild predators won’t call time out for a crying baby. Women began tending small animals like chickens. And with their greater upper-body strength, men took on the big animals like the ox and horse. And they built and maintained the houses, while the women maintained what was in the house.

This arrangement is universal. If is not as pronounced today in Western societies as it is elsewhere in the world or in the past, because the Industrial Revolution brought about changes in technology that affect the division of labor. Occupations outside the house developed that may be performed equally well by women or men. For example, a trip to the grocery store replaces the hard work of hunting of farming for most people. A modern job might consist of sitting at a computer terminal and pushing paper. Labor-saving devices and conveniences that raised the standard of living for women, and allowed them to enter these occupations without depriving the children of care, and day care facilities provide a care for the children while both mother and father work outside the home. The washing machine is less labor-intensive than taking the clothes down to the river to bang them clean on a rock. Pre-packaged and prepared foods save the time of cooking from scratch. Nevertheless, there are many women successful in working outside the home who choose to stay home to raise the children, and many more who wish they could, but can’t for economic reasons. The innate drives and impulses still influence the behavior of men and women.

Going back to the biological aspect of the human person, the brain differences between men and women evolved to further strengthen their ability to fulfill these roles.

The division of labor, and evolution of the family unit was a trait that survived in human societies. While there may have been other arrangements, those arrangements weren’t passed down. From an evolutionary perspective, it might be assumed that other ways of organizing society did not confer a survival advantage. Perhaps other arrangements never developed to begin with. This is lost in the mists of antiquity.

Marriage channels and controls the natural drives of men and women. By harnessing these drives in a way beneficial to the community, the conflict and chaos that would result from unrestricted promiscuous mating was averted. Adultery threatens this stability, hence it is regarded as taboo. Fidelity promotes the stability, hence it was elevated in esteem.

After many generations, the arrangements were formalized as marriage, which became an unwritten but important and universal component of natural law. By bringing in the element of exclusivity and permanence to the mating, the tribe would be more stable, the division of labor was more predictable, and loyalties and political connections within the tribe were strengthened. Everyone knew who would take care of the children, and everyone knew who would take care of people in their old age. The tribe would have a survival advantage because of this.

In my studies and reading, I am aware of only two cultures that allow a sort of quasi-same-sex marriage, and don’t be fooled, once you know the details. A west African tribe allows a wealthy widow to marry another woman. Only in this case the arrangement is not sexual; the women involved are not lesbians. Instead, the wealthy woman marries another woman who will act as a nanny and household manager, and there are no sexual relations. Think of that one partner as Alice from the Brady Bunch. This allows the wealthy widow to manage her business affairs without distraction. Even so, this arrangement is rare and is understood to be an exception to promote the economic survival of the tribe by freeing up the wealthy woman to manage her business affairs that in turn contribute to the economic prosperity of the tribe. As a non-sexual union, it is not regarded as an alternative to traditional marriage.

The other is up north among some tribes of native Americans of the Arctic. If there is a shortage of men, perhaps due to deaths on the hunt, which can be very dangerous, a teenage girl will be “switched” to the status of a man, and taught to hunt to make up for the shortage of men. She will marry a woman, again as a household manager, and the relationship is not sexual. This is a sort of ritual “sex change” that actually reaffirms the need for male and female in the tribe, because it does so because of a shortage of men, and is intended to restore an imbalance that threatens the tribe’s survival. It is not a lesbian marriage by any stretch of the imagination.

Both these exceptions prove the rule, that a sexual union that we call marriage is only between a man and a woman. And again, even within those cultures, there is no question that the marriage is not the same as a male-female marriage; the exceptions for allowing them are understood and the non-sexual aspect of these unions are acknowledged. The exceptions are not sexual, but intended for the allocation of labor within a tribe. And make no mistake, they are rare exceptions, not the rule, and even while they stand as exceptions they are actually affirming the universality of male-female marriage by allowing a substitution to restore the balance of male-female that is universally recognized. (See, I got something out of my college education!)

And even in the few societies that allow polygamy (a man marrying more than one wife) or polyandry (a woman marrying more than one man) the marriage arrangement is still males and females. Only the number of spouses of one gender or another change.

Marriage (as the exclusive and life-long union of a man and woman) is the legacy of civilization that is universally recognized and has been passed on to us from the dawn of antiquity. It is the pillar of every human culture, and the basis of all common law regarding family relationships. As L.M. Farrel PhD asserts, “The traditional view is based on the common sense observation that marriage and the family is a public institution, in which all society has a stake in preserving, because families create the next generation of society.” It is the natural survival advantage from nature, becoming an advantage of stability in culture that manifested itself in law in every culture.

And what was understood in these ways came to be regarded as moral, that is, right in a universal sense that comes from a higher power to which man owes respect. This is a transcendent reality as opposed to egotistical subjectivity. The transcendent reality is the great “ought,” the way we understood things to be ordered by whatever higher power was recognized in each culture. Something about marriage was good always and everywhere, and the children it brought, and the stability it promoted, as mentioned above, so it was regarded as having been handed down from above, and began to be regarded as sacred. Egotistical subjectivity, on the other hand, can be summed up in the old phrase, “if it feels good, do it.” There is no allegiance owed to a higher power or even to other people. There is no morality. The breakdown in morality in a culture will result in behavior that increases instability.

In the movie “Forbidden Planet,” Captain Adams and his crew find a planet with the lone survivors of a doomed expedition: a scientist and his daughter. Doctor Morbius, one of the survivors, has discovered a device created by a long-extinct race called the Krell that allows its users to create solid matter anywhere on the planet by the power of their thoughts. Morbius, believing he is the only one qualified to study this machine, begins to feel threatened by Adams and his crew, who want to share this discovery with humanity, and feels doubly threatened as his daughter’s affections turn toward Captain Adams, fearing he will take her away from him. A mysterious invisible monster begins to launch attacks on Adam’s ship and crew. Adams figures out that the machine is projecting Dr. Morbius’ subconscious thoughts and is responsible for creating the monster. Adams realizes the great race of the Krell were destroyed by their own impulses and feelings, projected into reality by the machine. When they created this machine, the Krell gave these “monsters from the Id” tangibility, and from these evil thoughts turned into physical reality that they unwittingly destroyed themselves. Adams tells Morbius that we need to tame our inner demons and animal instincts. “That’s why we have laws and religion,” he declares. Regarding marriage in the context of morality, defined in law and religion, protects us from our own drives and lusts, taming them and allowing their expression within an institution that sets boundaries and strengthens the bonds in society rather than weakening them. Uniting man and woman in marriage is the moral thing to do, going deeply into a way of thinking about life and the things we do that recognizes there are certain things that are right and wrong. This recognition of right and wrong is also universal. While the details may differ, the major points such as views on murder, adultery and rape, stealing and honesty are in agreement in every culture. Perhaps it may be God or the Buddha or Confucius or Zeus who hands down these teachings, but they are surprisingly uniform, especially as regards marriage.

Indeed, this is because the rightness of the union of male and female is universally evident and transcends culture. Dr. J. Budziszewski is associate professor of government and philosophy at University of Texas in Austin. He is a lay member of St. Luke s Episcopal Church in Austin. This is how he explains the importance of understanding the design of human beings:

It is interesting that this Anglican author has recognized through the use of reason reason both the unitive and procreative functions of the marriage act that are taught by the Catholic Church, and asserts that it is universally true even apart from religion. It is a misconception that the Catholic Church regards sex as sinful (with the marriage relationship) or that it is intended only for the production of children. Many of the early writings of the Church Fathers on the subject were made in opposition to heresies within the early Church and surrounding pagan cultures that promoted promiscuous sex or advocated abortion and birth control (which removes from the sexual act an openness to life that is intrinsic to the male-female relationship).

The great philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas, in defending that all sex is not sin, explains that:

Note that an act is not sinful when entered into according to its proper place in the scheme of things. The corollary is that an act can be wrong when performed in conflict with its proper place in the scheme of things. And let me here knock down any notion that Aquinas was asserting that sex was not intended for pleasure. Indeed, he states:

It is the context of conformity with human nature (in its best sense) and with right motives that an act is good, and as I have discussed above, the correct order of things, the natural law, is evident to all, and has been universally recognized. Indeed, Canadian Priest Father James McLenagen, in a sermon against the Canadian Supreme Court’s move to approve same-sex marriages, stated correctly that, “There isn’t a single world monotheistic religion that approves of homosexual acts.” Neither has any culture on record held homosexual acts as on the same level as the heterosexual marriage bond, even those that tolerated them.

So we have a stable arrangement that is universal, based on observation of the very nature of men and women, and ensures the survival of a society. In every culture, marriage became sacred, blessed by whatever religion the people believed. An institution so profoundly essential to the survival of the society was believed to be ordained and blessed by the gods. To paraphrase and interpolate a bit on Saint Paul, the truth of God’s ways can be recognized by the pagans who recognize them in Nature and life in general. It has become the universal foundation of every society, from the !Kung hunter-gatherers of Southwest Africa, to the fruited plain of Kansas. From China to the Amazon to the Vikings, marriage between man and woman (and only man and woman) is universally held to be sacred.

Indeed, the Catholic Church considers marriage sacred, and teaches that it was elevated to the status of a Sacrament by Jesus at the wedding at Cana. Cana is where Jesus performed his first public miracle by changing the water into wine. God created man in His image, male and female he created them, as is written in Genesis. And Jesus affirmed this saying, “that is why a man will leave his mother and cleave to his wife.”

Now here, I need to go into a digression. Some folks say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Wrong. Jesus accepted the scriptures as authoritative. He quoted from them on many occasions to prove a point or to point out a prophecy he was fulfilling. One day he sent his disciples out to preach to the surrounding towns. He said that some would reject his Gospel, and of those towns he said, “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:15)” Why say this? Everyone knew what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, and how bad it was, and the terrible punishment that fell on those cities. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was universally recognized as homosexuality, despite the efforts of modern liberals to convince us it wasn‘t. The Jews of Jesus’ day certainly interpreted it that way. Indeed, careful examination of the text of the story proves it is. Jesus did not refute that, but said, in effect, that as bad as it will be on Judgment Day for Sodom and Gomorrah (and we all know that they did and how bad it was), it will be worse for any city rejecting his message. He used the example of a city known for sin, and known for what a bad sin it was, to give a comparison. It was an indirect reference, a passing, subtle reminder (don’t forget Sodom and Gomorrah and what happened to them).

Nothing is in the Bible by accident. This reference is not just incidental, it is essential, because every word of Scripture is there for a reason. He took it for granted in this quote, and the clear reference to Sodom and Gomorrah would not be lost on the Jews of that day, even if it is lost on the liberal theologians of today. So Jesus did consider homosexual acts as sinful. Why didn’t he come right out and say it, then? It was a given. He had other fish to fry, and it wasn’t questioned back then, so it wasn’t an issue that needed to be addressed. But in making the passing reference, we can cross reference to get the message today, when it is an issue. Consider it a piece of a big puzzle that is in the box and doesn’t get taken out until it’s finally needed, and then it fits right in.

Some people say Jesus overturned the laws of the Old Testament. He didn’t overturn the moral law, he overturned the ritual law. We don’t have to sacrifice lambs and ox anymore, but we still have to obey the Ten Commandments.

And some folks think the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. Or that the Old Testament God is harsh and wrathful and the New Testament God is merciful and nice. Hmmm. What about “the Lord is my Shepherd?” What about “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms...” in Deuteronomy? And there are certainly images of the righteous anger of God in the New Testament.

But this isn’t true about Old versus New Testament. Again, ritual law, like rules about eating (the Kosher laws), circumcision, and so on are in the old covenant and no longer apply, but the moral law still applies. Stealing is still a sin. Murder is still a sin. The Ten Commandments still apply. So where the Old Testament says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination... (Leviticus 20:13). The New Testament affirms this in Romans, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet“ (Romans 1:26-27) Paul in First Corinthians tells us, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Indeed, no passage of the Bible referring to homosexuality can easily be construed as condoning it.

Moving right along in this rather long digression, we can turn to the philosophical reasons supporting the Biblical admonitions against homosexual behavior. I’ve recently read a book called “Why Matter Matters,” by David P. Lang, who holds a PhD in Philosophy from Boston College, and a PhD in Mathematics from Northeastern University. His book deals with the material components in the Sacraments, like the water in Baptism and the bread in the Eucharist. In the case of Marriage, he looks at the physical bodies of the spouses, since in Marriage, according to Catholic theology, it is the Bride and Groom who confer the Sacrament upon each other, witnessed by the priest, unlike the other six Sacraments recognized by Catholics, which are conferred by a priest or bishop.

Dr. Lang begins his argument by asserting that of all the various distinguishing characteristics such as “skin color and other ethnic characteristics are incidental to human nature. The only difference among (mature adult) human persons containing any moral relevance is the gender distinction.” He explains that animals have this distinction too, but animals “lack intellect and free will” and are not responsible for their actions, although they instinctively behave in a way that turns out to be best for them. Human beings are responsible for their actions. Humans are a combination of body and incorruptible soul that will last forever. He explains :

With this in mind, and also mindful of human nature he asserts:

Now I put aside Dr. Lang for a moment to look at some highlights of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches about marriage. I doubt there is anything here that a Protestant who considers marriage sacred would object to:

So we see that marriage is a complimentary relationship ordered toward unity between husband and wife, and fertility. It is a misconception to say that the Church used to teach that marriage was only for the creation of children. There was an emphasis on this purpose in ancient times, and that emphasis is what gets passed down to us by people who criticize the Church. It is both the unitive and procreative purposes together that are the reasons for marriage.

At this stage, one might raise the objection that although homosexual couples are not naturally fertile, so are many heterosexual couples, for example people who marry when they are elderly. How can homosexual unions be wrong because they are inherently infertile when there are so many infertile heterosexual couples? Dr. J. Budziszewski explains, “Of course heterosexuals may suffer sterility too, but there is a difference. The sterility of the homosexual act is not an accidental misfortune that befalls some people but not others. On the contrary, it is intrinsic to the homosexuality of the act. Same with same cannot make new life.” Dr. Lang explains:

Neither, if same-sex unions deny the basic nature of humans and of the marital bond, are they ordered toward the good of the partners. Long before Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II, he wrote about marriage in Love and Responsibility, first published in Polish in 1960. He wrote, “Whenever a person is the object of your activity, remember that you may not treat that person as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends.” This means that any act toward or with another person must be in conformity with the good of the other person.

In male and female, in addition to the fecundity of the union, there is also the complimentarity of the relationship. The man ideally seeks those qualities of the woman that complete him, and the woman does likewise. The aforementioned differentiation of function and psychology between male and female compliment each other, and seeks the other. One gender completes of fulfills the other, and seeks its compliment. The man and woman join not just physically but emotionally and in their wills, which come together to cooperate in the process of creation and the nurturing of that creation.

Furthermore, homosexual unions by their nature cannot be complimentary, so they are not the act of one seeking the otherness of the partner, but rather they are the act of the one seeking oneself in the other. They are inherently narcissistic.

Homosexual unions become morally disordered when it is understood that moral concepts about marriage uphold the traditional union of man and woman as properly ordered to uphold the dignity of the individual, and the stability of society. Some may believe that morality evolved by giving a competitive advantage to societies that held to certain norms of behavior. I believe that morality evolved because humans were created by God, and certain aspects of human nature and the importance of conforming to behavioral norms became evident over time, and were codified in the civil law and religious law (which at one time were often one and the same during ancient times).

Due to the very nature of man and woman, from the perspectives of biology, anthropology and religion, marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman. A same-sex union cannot be a marriage. It is something else.

The law might be re-written to label a same-sex union as a marriage, but a law can also be passed to call an apple an orange. In the eyes of the law, a tomato is a vegetable, when in fact, it is a fruit. Any botanist will tell you it is a fruit. But the government calls it a vegetable. Even in common usage, it’s considered a vegetable. But the law or common language does not make it so. The same goes for same-sex unions. The law cannot make something into something that it is not. Same-sex marriage is an ontological impossibility. Due to the nature of man and woman, and how they function in a marriage, the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot be a marriage, no matter what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wants to call it.

So for me to say that I oppose same-sex marriage is not to say that I am against giving homosexuals the right to marry, rather it is to say that they cannot marry due to their inherent nature as men or women, so the law should not call their union a marriage. Let the law call it something else, but not “marriage.” Let the law give the power of attorney to a same-sex partner, delineate proper rights of inheritance and the responsibilities they have toward each other in the union, but do not call it a marriage, because it isn’t, and can’t be. Only a man and woman can get married to each other. Don’t call it something it isn’t, and don’t elevate that union to the same legal status as marriage, because it isn’t a marriage.

This point of view may cause some people to label me as a “homophobe.” Or they may accuse me of hate or intolerance. But if you’re read this far, you should understand that my position is not founded on any intolerance or disapproval, but rather on an understanding of what it means to be a man and a woman, and how men and women join in marriage to form strong families and strong societies. It is not a point of view that attempts to deny a group of people any rights, but is a point of view that recognizes what marriage is, and why a same-sex union does not meet the definition of a marriage.