By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute; first published Feb. 25, 2009
Does anyone stop and think about why the government is involved in marriage at all? Some clarity on this issue may prevent the culture–destroying institutionalization of same-sex civil unions and their inevitable successor same-sex marriage–well, both clarity and courage will be necessary.
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents.
As David Blankenhorn writes in The Future of Marriage, “In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are–and are understood to be–emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”
The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government’s interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government’s involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love.
If we continue down a path toward legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are based on the fundamental error that the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage is to recognize love, we will end up with polygamy and polyandry. If we accept as true the erroneous claim that government is involved in marriage in order to publicly sanction love and that government-sanctioned marriage is only peripherally or incidentally concerned with procreation and child-rearing, then there is no justification for prohibiting any people who love each other from marrying.
What prompts this discussion is a New York Times op-ed piece co-written by David Blankenhorn, a Democrat and defender of traditional marriage, and homosexual activist Jonathan Rauch. In this article, they propose a compromise between marriage traditionalists and homosexualists who seek a complete redefinition of marriage. The compromise is this:
Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
There are two critical problems with this proposal:
First, there is no reason for the government to provide institutional recognition to same-sex “civil unions” in that they contribute nothing beneficial to the common good. Do not misunderstand that statement: I did not say that those who self-identify as homosexual contribute nothing beneficial to the common good. They unequivocally do. Rather, homosexual unions per se are destructive to the common good. Even the tragic fact that homosexual couples are procuring children via ethically dubious means should not compel the state to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate this perverse reality.
Second, homosexualists will not for very long accept this compromise. In fact, some will not accept it even in the short- term. Alex Blaze, managing editor of The Bilerico Project, which according to the The Washington Post is a “must read” “in the gay political blogosphere,” writes the following deeply troubling response:
Blankenhorn and Rauch consider the possibility that without the religious-conscience exemption, “a church auxiliary or charity [may be told] it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status,” to which Blaze responds:
OMFG [Oh My F—–g God] THE HORROR! A church might be expected to help someone get medical help. What kind of world do we live in where fine, upstanding religious folks are expected to take part in such filthy acts like paying for their employees’ families health care?
In a fit of pique, Blaze ends in a blaze of inglorious and discomfiting words about marriage traditionalists and compromise:
Oddly, Blaze and Illinois Family Institute [and Americans For Truth about Homsoexuality–Ed.] are in agreement: this portentous “compromise” should be uncompromisingly rejected.
This article was first published by the Illinois Family Institute. Laurie Higgins is the director of IFI’s Division of School Advocacy and a frequent contributor to Americans For Truth.
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
|Copyright © 2006-2011 Americans for Truth. All Rights Reserved.|