Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say, “Be fruitful and multiply”? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproduction technology — and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.
And here’s the response of Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family:
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, in his introduction to Lisa Miller’s article, called the “conservative resort to biblical authority” in opposing same–sex “marriage” “the worst kind of fundamentalism.” (Really Mr. Meacham? Worse than those fundamentalist that premeditated and executed the horrors of 9/11?) Given that, how does he explain his choice of cover art used for the article: a picture of a large Bible marked with a gay-friendly rainbow book marker. What authority are we to assume their article is appealing to and why is that not dangerous?
However, just for kicks, try for a minute to take Meacham and Miller at their word and agree to put aside this “dangerous” resort to conservative biblical authority and make another kind of case. How about a deeply pragmatic one that Focus on the Family and others have actually made for years?
Babies are more than cute little bundles of sweetness and love. They are the next generation of taxpayers, educators and caregivers. And because these new humans don’t automatically arrive on time like the 5:20 bus, you have to be very deliberate and intentional about making them. And if you don’t … well, just ask the Europeans what happens. The BBC recently reported on the “gloom” of one German political minister who warned that his nation’s economy will collapse if its birth rate does not pick up. He is not alone. All European nations are facing this problem and enacting public policies to reward couples handsomely who will, well…“be fruitful and multiply.” But like the biblical authors, apparently these European leaders are yet to realize the genius of Miller’s “brave new world” solution of “international adoption and assisted reproduction technology” as a viable alternative to husbands and wives producing their own children. Silly Europeans!
On this point, consider the French. Two years ago, the Parliament accepted a sober and sophisticated report from their National Assembly explaining:
Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and this is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child … [Therefore] a majority … does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation which are based on the tripartite unit of “a father, a mother, a child”, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples. (emphasis added)
Be sure, there is both a religious and purely secular procreative case to be made for natural marriage, and we ignore that at our collective peril. Just ask the governments of secular and child-less Europe.
