Redefining marriage threatens religious liberty
Traditional Marriage and Equal Rights
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The institution of marriage has worked well over the centuries in spite of challenges. Marriage is never easy, it is not just about love and companionship, and it is an obligation and a covenant. Pope Francis declared the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by 342 members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton as an anti-gay move, to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” a certain group of Americans.
Most Americans believe that redefining marriage for the majority of Americans in order to include a minority who feels discriminated against is certainly a convoluted and destructive way to give Americans the same access to insurance, inheritance, civil unions, hospital visitations, and other perks that a traditional married couple enjoys, including divorce and higher taxes.
The existence of orderly society is based on reproduction resulting from the union of a man and a woman. The resulting children need both a man and woman in order to be successful, well protected, cared for, loved, and for society to survive over time and grow independent of government.
Marriage predates government but the government conveniently recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage in order to insure its survivability and the survivability of our species.
When marriage is promoted and protected, other relationships are not banned. There are common-law couples, heterosexual couples who never marry, homosexual couples, and single individuals who choose not to be in a relationship. The government does not force these adults to make the choice of marriage and thus no one should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
Ryan T. Anderson said, “Redefining marriage would legislate a new principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.” (The Heritage Foundation, March 11, 2013)
Marriage is not about having a party, a wedding cake, distributing legal property, insurance, or the right to divorce. Marriage is about survival of the species, “monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence.” If you redefine marriage, the so-called “marriage equality,” you open the Pandora’s Box of other ills. If same sex couples “marry” why not have polygamy, marriages to animals, and marriages to cousins, polyamorous relationships, and pedophilia sanctioned by the state?
Anderson argues that there is no such thing as “parenting,” there is “mothering” and there is “fathering;” each has an important and irreplaceable individual role in the upbringing of a healthy child who will grow into a healthy adult.
Marriage has been recognized as the union of a man and a woman in Jewish and Christian traditions, in philosophy, in ancient Greek and Roman law, even in primitive cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation.
Recently, “Marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.” By breaking down marriage, civil society is weakened and limited government will explode into government control. Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation cites numerous studies that show that man-woman relationships and their marriage promotes economic well-being because society does not need to care for children who are born out of wedlock. One of the studies by Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project summarized, “The core message…is that the wealth of nations depends in no small part on the health of the family.”
“Government can treat people equally – and leave them free to live and love as they choose – without redefining marriage.” There is no ban on the same-sex love, there is freedom to have same sex unions, to live together, to buy a house together, own property, worship in churches that bless same sex union, and work in places that offer joint benefits.
“Redefining marriage threatens religious liberty.” Religious groups will stop running adoption agencies if they have to violate their religious principles. Under the directives of Putin, Russians have suspended adoptions for same-sex couples from the United States. Americans who refused services related to same-sex marriages were successfully sued in court. Their religious beliefs were trampled by the wishes of a minority who sought to redefine marriage and won.
Nonie Darwish, author, spoke with Silvio Canto Jr. recently about the marriage redefinition. She discussed her recent article, “Marriage is an obligation, not a right.” Born a Muslim in Egypt, she lived as a child under Islamic Law which encourages polygamy. She moved to the United States where she became a Christian and embraced monogamy because “respect of the Christian marriage is the only way to have peace, stability, and civilization.”
Nonie Darwish described the premise of marriage under Islamic Law where men don’t promise loyalty to their wives but the wives pledge loyalty to their husband. Muslim women live together and Muslim men live together. This creates a gender-segregated society. Darwish wondered if we are going to have a gender-segregated society with lesbian couples and homosexual couples. She mentioned the Australian lesbian activist who said that the purpose of gay marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage.
When children are brought up by gay couples, society will change. Such unions are based on artificial and false premises of inheritance, hospital visitations, employment benefits, things that do not define a family. Such unions can never produce a biological child without the help of a third party.
Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the state. Some heterosexuals never marry because it is a big responsibility to marry and divorce rates are high. Arranged marriages still take place in many cultures and are not based on love – some learn to love each other, some never do. “The marriage institution was not created to regulate love. Marriage developed naturally out of the need to raise the next generation.” Nonie Darwish concluded that, in spite of the liberal media bombardment with shows promoting the happy gay lifestyle, “just because it is legal, it is not normal.”
My favorite department store just celebrated June as gay “pride month.” Upon entering the store, a large board was quoting one of its employees, urging shoppers to “Be Inspired.” I am certain that I will be inspired to stop shopping in this store - I don’t like to buy my clothes in any place that engages in politics. This is the same store selling “sustainable shoes.”