By Michael Maiello

The United States Supreme Court is hearing two pivotal cases and could, at its whim, change the definition of marriage and custom that has guided human society since ancient times.  From experience, we know this — for the most part, aside from sex, men prefer the company of men and women prefer the company of women.  We have never had a society where the norm was for men and women to cohabitate, particularly with children.

What has worked so far for humanity is this — a man and a man live together to raise a young man.  A woman and another woman live together to raise a young woman.  This has not only been successful from an evolutionary standpoint, but it has promoted civic harmony and social cohesion.

Throughout history, there have been dissidents to humanity’s conventions.  There have been men and women who have chosen to live together and even to raise children.  These heterodox men and women have served in the military, they have served in Congress and they have participated in the economy, sometimes in secret, sometimes out in the open.

There is no reason for anyone to hate these people.  All people should, of course, love and respect one another.  But that love and respect does not translate into condoning specific behaviors or choices.  We might love the thief but hate the thieving, because thieving is bad for society.  By the same vein, we might love those who engage in heterodox marriage, but hate the act of heterodox marriage, because the idea of a man and woman, living together for life, is bad for society.

Heterodox Marriage proponents will tell you that, “It’s none of your business.”  But we all live together.  Who wants to share a society full of children left confused by having both a male and female role model when the child is clearly either one or the other?

Even when children aren’t involved, heterodox marriages creates costly problems for society.  For example, most incidents of domestic violence between heterodox marriage couples occur during the Super Bowl, when the emotional state of the male is obviously and understandably heightened and inhibitions are lowered by alcohol consumption.

For their part, even the best intentioned men are unlikely to ever develop any sort of meaningful interest in typical women’s activities such as knitting, the novels of J.K. Rowling and wearing Lululemon products in non-yoga settings.

Men and women share extensive company for one reason, intended by nature, for which most of our bodies derive great pleasure.  Whether it’s fair or not, the idea of a heterodox couple, where a man and woman share extensive time together both inside and outside of the household, even to the point of sharing the burdens of mundane and pecuniary tasks, leaves the impression of persistent libido driven tendencies.

I realize, in this politically correct age that the above might strike some observers as too blunt but even if the reality of such a relationship based on constant sex is unlikely that the sheer amount of time these men and women choose to spend in each other’s company implies the possibility to outsiders.  Two men shopping at Whole Foods might discuss their Fantasy Football results while picking through the peppers, mushrooms and arugula.  The fantasies of a man and woman shopping together will naturally turn less towards professional sports than it will towards lewd conduct behind the bulk grain bins near the freight elevator.

There is no doubt that these heterodox couples have a legitimate claim to a personal right.  But is society ready for the transformation towards unbridled sexuality that the outright sanction of opposite sex partnerships could cause?  I think that some people are and, over time, the country as a whole might come around to that point of view.  But, it’s too early.  Let’s leave it to the states and future generations, not the Supreme Court.

Advertisements