Join us for entertainment and education at our celebration of marriage event with musical guest Alex Boye, Richard and Linda Eyre, and “America’s Historian” David Barton. To register, click here. Or just show up at the door: June 26th, South Towne Expo Center, 9575 S State St, Sandy, UT. Music and Mingle at 6:00 pm, program starts at 7:00 pm.
Preserving marriage is the great issue of our time. Redefining marriage to meet the objectives of proponents of same-gender marriage will remove the natural family-father, mother, and children-as the basic unit of society. It would, as a matter of law, deny the ideal that children need a mother and a father, and further, that children need mothering and fathering, the very factors that prepare them for their role in nurturing and sustaining the families of the future. The impact on civilization as we know it would be profound. If you are pro-family, you may hear common arguments and questions that need a ready answer. This article considers questions pro-family advocates are frequently asked.
FAQ: Why can’t traditional and nontraditional marriage coexist? Traditional marriage is the only institution that protects a child’s right to have both a mom and a dad. Children cannot defend these rights on their own, but rely upon marriage law to do so. A legal redefinition threatens children’s rights as well as the gender-based rights of all Americans. We join others in calling “upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World).
FAQ: How does my gay marriage hurt you? Same-gender marriage defines men and women as exchangeable units and requires that government institutionally endorse and promote that uniformity, making gender complementarity obsolete. This definition removes from the law a child’s right to have a father and a mother and denies the indispensable functions that mothering and fathering provide. Removing gender requirements from marriage further threatens all gender-based rights affecting alimony, presumption of paternity, custody considerations, and even privacy in public locker rooms, restrooms, and showers, all of which depend on the recognition of our unique gender needs.
We may look to British Columbia, Canada, for an application of same-gender marriage dictates. Birth certificates now require a place for the mother’s name and a check-off box for the “other parent/father.” There, the valuable part fathers play in raising healthy and successful children is now legally recognized as merely optional. Canada has created a legally-endorsed system that discriminates against men and that will alienate more fathers from the lives of their children.
FAQ: Why is the definition of marriage such a big deal? Marriage is an institution that defines all of us as we relate to the common goal of raising a young generation prepared to keep our nation strong. Whether married or single, each of us has a relationship to that common societal goal. In order to protect children and the homes that nurture them, it is essential that we be able to define ideas, behaviors, and relationships that either support or threaten the family. For this reason society has always identified such things as children, parents, heirs, siblings, and monogamy, as well as adultery, abuse, “home-wreckers,” incest, and the like. Each of these identifications starts with a clear definition of marriage.
For their own self-preservation, societies have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman whose marital privileges are based upon their commitment to protect and nurture the children that may be created as a result of their union. This natural union recognizes that men and women are complementary, that reproduction depends upon their biological differences, and that the children born to them need both a father and a mother.
FAQ: Why does the government regulate marriage and family? Marriage protects those made vulnerable by the procreative act. This unique contract protects children who have no power to consent to their own creation and who require decades of sustained nurture and protection to thrive. Since the first objective of any society is to survive and to perpetuate itself, the government has an interest in the stability of the homes where children are raised.
There is no reason to have a government registry of relationships except in that “society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers; marriage is a word for the way we join men and women together to make the future happen.” -Maggie Gallagher.
FAQ: How can marriage be about children, when not all marriages have children? Not all couples have children, but all children have parents. To ensure a nation’s future, we must look at marriage from the child’s point of view. Adults can meet their own needs and require no assistance from the government to achieve successful and loving relationships. But even aged or infertile couples contribute to society by following the marital norms of sexual exclusivity and permanence, practices that prevent out-of-wedlock births and the creation of fatherless children. Simply stated, if married men are faithful to their infertile wives, they will not be going around creating children out of wedlock.
FAQ: Why not leave marriage up to religions? In our nation, religion does not have the power to demand child support payments, negotiate and enforce custody, or punish those who abuse spouse or offspring. Since abuse and abandonment are inherently irreligious acts, offenders will likely have already left the jurisdiction of church discipline. By retiring its interest in marriage, government will have declared such destructive behavior irrelevant. Thus those made vulnerable by the procreative act-children-would be abandoned and abused without legal recourse.
FAQ: Shouldn’t religion stay out of politics? Would you say that to Reverend Martin Luther King? Most movements to improve law were led by religious leaders, including the abolition of slavery, child labor laws, and the civil rights movements. Our government was also founded on moral and religious principles.
FAQ: Isn’t same-gender marriage about love? Today, same-gender couples are free to love and live as they wish. However, marriage should be reserved for those relationships that are willing and able to participate in the public good of creating and raising children. Redefining marriage as a same-gender union rests upon the premise that emotional intensity is the foundation that sets marriage apart as a legal bond. The government has not been in the business of reaffirming romantic or emotional attachments, but it is in the business of protecting children and ensuring societal stability.
FAQ: Isn’t the love expressed to children in same-sex unions the same as in opposite-sex unions? Overwhelming empirical evidence shows that children need the fathering and mothering that natural marriage provides. Even in a gay union where love for children is the focus, children are distanced from their basic need for a mother and a father.
Biology matters, and the heritage that is attached to it defines and influences individuals throughout their lives.
“Each member of the same-sex couple may be a fine parent. But two good mothers do not add up to a father.” -Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
FAQ: What about the statistics that show children are not harmed by same-sex marriage? Decisive statistics do not exist showing no extra harm. Decades of reputable studies have shown what experience has already taught, that both fathering and mothering are distinct and separate responsibilities essential to the success of growing children. Same-sex parenting eliminates one of those influences from the life of a child. The “no difference” philosophy would require us to reject the last 50 years of research demonstrating children’s unique needs for fathering and mothering, as well as the distinct educational, emotional, and economic advantages to children where both parents are involved.
Although the APA once stated, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents,” many social scientists have roundly rejected this assertion and the scholarship behind it. A representative, peer-reviewed article pointed out that “not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed-many of them.” To reject major, well-established, longitudinal studies over 50 years in favor of small sample studies, within a politically charged atmosphere no less, is highly suspect.
FAQ: Why don’t you just let people live how they want to? In all 50 states people are free “to live and to love as they choose.” They can join a religious community that blesses their union and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. Government can treat people equally and ensure their liberty without redefining marriage. What is at issue here is whether the government will recognize same-sex relationships as marriage and then compel every citizen, religion, and business to do the same.
FAQ: Isn’t same-gender marriage a civil right? Generally speaking, civil rights are universal in nature, but participation in marriage has always been thoroughly restricted using several criteria. Before entering into marriage, one must be old enough to consent; couples may not be biologically related; man and wife must be willing commit to permanent sexual exclusivity; they must submit to legal regulations concerning health, children, finance, and property. These qualifications and unique features of marriage help us understand that its purpose in society is to provide a stable environment for children that may be created by the conjugal union of man and woman. “To reorient marriage to the needs of same-sex couples is necessarily to orient it away from its core public and civic mission of channeling sexual passion so that children do not get hurt and so that society gets the next generation it needs.” -Maggie Gallagher
FAQ: How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? “When we stand by children, we will always be standing on the right side of history.” -Jenet Erickson, PhD
FAQ: Why are you fighting this? Isn’t gay marriage inevitable? If proponents of same-gender marriage were convinced that they had the momentum of public support, they would call for a public vote rather than focusing on judges and occasionally legislators to implement their objectives. Obviously, neither side of the debate believe that gay marriage is inevitable.
In fact, this is just the beginning of our realizing how important marriage is to society. Here is what recent history has shown us about the inevitability of the issue:
- Four courts removed gender-based marriage from the law. Thirty-eight states responded by passing or reaffirming gender-based marriage in the law.
- In liberal-leaning California, citizens rejected the judges’ interpretation and voted for Proposition 8. It won with a margin of almost 6 points, a larger margin than most presidential elections.
- French legislators, intent on passing a “Marriage for All” bill, rejected a petition with 700,000 opposition signatures, which triggered a series of rallies in Paris. In a country with a population of only 67 million, each of the last four rallies was estimated to have exceeded one million people, all standing against “Marriage for All.”
The pattern of inevitability seen so far is that attacks on marriage will only strengthen the public’s resolve to uphold traditional family.
My FAQ for you: Won’t you make a stand for a child’s right to have both a mother and a father? This is a defining moment in history, one in which our families, friends, and children will look back on and ask, Where did you stand when the family was at stake?
Join us for entertainment and education at our celebration of marriage event with musical guest Alex Boye, Richard and Linda Eyre, and “America’s Historian” David Barton. To register, click here. Or just show up at the door: June 26th, South Towne Expo Center, 9575 S State St, Sandy, UT. Music and Mingle at 6:00 pm, program starts at 7:00 pm.
SarahAugust 21, 2013
I am an outside observer who lives in another country with the same debate going on. I also live in a country that has compulsary voting (which on a political world scale means it is both more and less democratic than your system) so I find it very interesting and also disturbing that people are unwilling to go to the ballot box on such issues. Having lived in many countries I've noticed all laws are based in morality and the values of that specific country or culture., Therefore all laws impose values on others, that is the nature of them. So with this in mind, and as some who is from a country where everybody votes, it is unfathomable that the proposal of a new law (or new value) would not encourage and even require that all viewpoints and all sections of society take their vote to the table to be voted upon. That's democracy-it is a majority vote that wins afterall. It is even necessary to vote as it is without a doubt, an individualistic society that changes the definition of marriage to mean only love. A very first world problem in my view. Do we want an individualistic society high on personal agency or a community based society high on concern for family, tradition and others first? Unlike the US and many other westernised countries, not all societies are high on individual values but value community and the sacrifice of personal happiness for community cohesiveness. Whatever a westerner may think about love/gay marriages, it is clear we value personal, individual happiness and selfish desires (from a non western perspective) first and foremost. So should we vote on our morals? Of course because again I reiterate, all laws are legally enforced morals, (whether we think they are or not). In fact, having lived in the US it is noticable how many American laws are morally different from Australian laws. Just a short history of marriage, starting from industrial families in the 1900's to the nuclear family to now, we can easily track the change in laws, which changed with changing morals which in turn have/will change future morals. And for those who do not know world history, thats not a belief, it's a social fact. So YES, of course take your own values and morals to the political table- everyone else is taking theirs. That is what a true democracy is, all voices are heard, all voices count and all voices are voted, the majority vote may then become law. It is nothing to be ashamed about. All laws will give freedom to some and will take away freedom from others- In this case the right of children to have a mother and father as set out under the conventions of marriage. Can an unborn child have a voice? No. What do you think is best? There is always a higher law, what one is the higher law for you? Whatever it is, vote on it. That is democracy. It is not bigotry. Should the definition of marriage stay the same or should we change it? Let us call a spade a spade- We change the definition of marriage or we don't. If we don't relationships will still be created outside of that, at the will and agency of those who want it ie. single parent, same sex couples, de facto all fall outside the concept of traditional families and marriage. But throw words like equality and bigotry out the window because quite frankly it is about neither, it is about a change in a social norm.
MAry Fielding SummerhaysJuly 2, 2013
Graeme Cray, I would be pleased to help you in any way possible. Please contact me at [email protected] so we can talk more. Thanks, Mary