Protecting Marriage Preserves the Family

This article was originally published in the Kansas City Star on July 8, 2006.

Recently the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have defined the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Opponents of the federal Marriage Amendment claim that no such amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed since there are current laws on the books in 45 states prohibiting same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact these measures have passed with an average margin of 71% within their respective states. This is all well and good; and typically states-rights is the best way to decide an issue like this. Yet the truth remains that the proponents of same-sex marriage are not content to let the democratic process run its course in this particular case. At this very time the marriage laws in ten of the 45 states mentioned above are being challenged in federal court. If a federal judge decides that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution then the will of that 71% of citizens in those states will be made null and void. These states will then be forced by the federal government to recognize same-sex unions that have been ratified in other states. In this light it is clear that a federal amendment is required in order to avoid the over-reaching arm of the federal courts.

The typical argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that marriage is a societal institution that is constantly being redefined as society sees fit. To this end laws are passed to give legal sanction to the relationship and to confer certain rights upon it. The flaw in this argument is that it cannot be shown that marriage is nothing more than a social contract. It is completely overlooked that no society has ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. Societies have merely recognized the already-existing institution of marriage and have passed laws regulating it for the benefit of that society. Marriage always has been between man and woman. Sociologist Kingsley David states, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval...of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." (emphasis added) Even Paul Nathanson, who is himself a homosexual, stated the five functions of marriage as: 1) to foster male-female bonding, (2) to foster the birth and rearing of children (emphasis added), (3) to foster man-child relationships, (4) to foster a healthy masculine identity and (5) to foster the transition of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. As can obviously be seen, many of these cannon take place in a same-sex relationship.

With all this having been said, the ideal for marriage is to have one man committed for life to one woman for the purpose of bearing and rearing children in order that the human race may be perpetuated. Only a male-female relationship is naturally conducive to the bearing of children. For the state to issue marriage licenses to anyone outside these bounds is to say that marriage is no big thing at all. Once this happens marriage cannot be denied to any other group on any logical ground and any children that are brought into this "family" are denied either a true father or a true mother. The sanctity of the institution of marriage must be protected as this is the fertile ground wherein the next generation of any society is raised. No man can teach a little girl how to be a woman just as no woman can teach a boy how to be a man. Both a mother and a father living in the home in a committed marriage relationship are needed to provide the type of environment needed to raise healthy children. If our nation wants the coming generations to succeed, the institution of marriage should be supported and strengthened, not redefined.