In 2006, I opposed the Marshall-Newman amendment because I thought the amendment was unconstitutional and an overstretch. Proven correct, so far.
The root of my opposition to the amendment is it is unnecessary; unnecessary because marriage is already clearly defined – by God and by precedent – as being between a man and a woman. Just like we inherently know not to steal, kill, commit adultery, etc., it is just an inherent fact that marriage – which is consummated not through religious rite or state approval, but by the physical joining of man and woman – is something we already know and understand. We don’t need government to tell us what it is. We already know the truth.
I believe the only marriage that should ever be sanctioned by the state is between a man and woman. Everything else is a contract. Neither do I believe civil unions should be permissible between a man and a woman. Read that last sentence again, because it’s important. Civil unions between men and women hurt society because it leads to a cavalier approach to commitment.
That said, I’m open to at least debating state-sanctioned contracts being entered into between consenting members of the same sex that may or may not have the same rights and privileges of a married couple. Is this view mere semantics? Not really.
There are two broad reasons for why gay marriage should not become accepted in Virginia: the secular and the sacred.
While the founders endeavored to “separate church and state”, that does not mean the systemic elimination of God – and the moral precepts that come from God – from our lives and government. The founders were interested in preventing a national church, but they very much supported and encouraged people to have a moral compass and faith.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams.
But let’s start with the secular argument: that a gay couple is just as adequate at providing a strong family unit as a married husband and wife.
Some studies (see McGlothlin) might bear this out in modern society, but, in fact, the vast preponderance of research demonstrates that children do best in a home with their biological mother and father — even stepparents do not get the same high marks
The problem with modern society is that fathers don’t stay committed to mothers. Every human being on this planet is the product of a mom and a dad. That’s an irrefutable fact. Children are, indeed, better off knowing both mom and dad.
But don’t take my word for it.
“The family, centered on marriage, is the basic unit of society. Healthy marriages and families are the foundation of thriving communities. When marriages break down, communities suffer and the role of government tends to expand. Sound public policy places marriage and the family at the center, respecting and guarding the role of this permanent institution.”
So says the Heritage Foundation, and they have the research and commentary to back up their beliefs. Education, emotional intelligence, prosperity – all because dad stuck around to help mom raise their kid.
When you look at marriage throughout history, that’s why government promotes the rights of children to their own mother and own father.
When you have parents raising their children, the kids are inclined to do better and advance the society (and, in our case, the commonwealth of Virginia).
My secular argument against gay marriage is one backed by substantive study that we need to promote families.
I am consistent in my argument – babies should not be aborted and fathers should not abandon their lovers. It’s a pretty simple argument. While it might have an air or religiosity to it, it also is pretty darn practical and secular.
But, wait, Jim! What you’re saying has nothing to do with why two women or men shouldn’t be able to marry.
Yeah, actually it does.
When we say that marriage is anything other than between man and woman; when we say that marriage is just a contract; when we say the marriage is not for the purpose of family, we blow up the entire institution.
It has been argued that older couples get married who can’t have children. So, why is that allowed in my paradigm vice those of the same sex?
For that, we must enter into the world of religion.
While I could elaborate on my faith and its theology, I know many of you have no desire to know how my faith influences my view on public policy. So, I’ll spare you. If you are really interested, visit here.
That said, fundamentally, in Genesis, God created man and woman. He created them so that they could be together. Just as the Holy Trinity is represented by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – three in one, so are man and woman joined in a unity to become whole.
This is why adultery is wrong. This is why pornography is wrong. This is why sex out of wedlock is wrong. This is why homosexuality is wrong. This is why no-fault divorce is wrong. All of these things are a direct rejection of God and a very profound statement of disbelief.
So, I’ll leave it at that. While all these things don’t actually “hurt anyone but the person/couple involved” and might be construed as “none of my business”, is it?
In our nation, we have tried to push out the Ten Commandments. We have endeavored to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase, “One nation, under God.” We have filed lawsuits to prohibit prayer at public meetings. We have told military chaplains that they are no longer welcome to pray to their God. And, now, we want to advance gay marriage?
Is that really what John Adams envisioned? I think not.
Talk about a slippery slope.