In our continued
effort to preserve and protect traditional marriage, we have set out
to show the damaging effect of homosexual marriage and the consequences
to society should it evolve into an accepted cultural norm.
And while the consequences of gay marriage can be summed up in easy-to-understand
short “snippets” – children will be taught in public school that a
“marriage” between two “mommies” is on par with a marriage between
a mother and father; that individuals, small businesses and religious
organizations could be sued for refusing to provide services to gay
couples on the grounds of discrimination; that licensed professionals
are in jeopardy of losing their license for exercising their religious
objections – the facts of traditional marriage warrant a more thorough
examination, particularly in light of same-sex marriage supporters’
assertion that the issue is only about fairness and equality under
the law.
One of the more interesting papers on the constitutional basis for
traditional marriage is from the
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
It is important to understand that this article looks at the institution
of marriage from a purely legal standpoint, but it raises and confirms
several key points that ProtectMarriage.com advances.
On the one side are those who want to legally redefine the word marriage
in such a way as to make the gender of the couple irrelevant, or put
another way, to create a genderless union. On the other side
are those who consider the legal issue in a much broader sense and
want to preserve the definition of marriage between a man and a woman
as central to the institution of marriage. The author acknowledges
that marriage is much more than just a word to be redefined.
Rather, it is a vital social institution which “affects individuals
profoundly” and comprises “meanings and norms that teach, form and
transform individuals, supplying identities, purposes, practices and
projects.”
The meaning of the institution of marriage, then, becomes part of
the societal good, and those societal goods lead to the perpetuation
of the institution itself. If we abandon the institution of
marriage – and redefining it requires that we abandon it – we lose
the societal good that goes along with it.
What are some of the societal goods that only a marriage between a
man and woman provide?
• It provides the only environment for a child to know and be raised
by his or her biological parents;
• It lays the foundation for child-rearing that results in optimal
outcomes for the child, and as a result, society;
• It provides the only modeling for a male transformation into our
society’s valued husband/father role and a female’s transformation
into the role of wife/mother; and
• It is a pre-political institution that has passed the test of time
and elevated the common good, unlike the untested experiment of homosexual
marriage.
These are examples of social goods that have been valued throughout
time which homosexual marriage, by definition, simply cannot provide.
And the fact is that society cannot have a social institution that
is called “marriage” be defined simultaneously as between a man and
a woman and between any two consenting adults. When the meaning of
the institution is fractured, the societal good received from that
institution is reduced.
As the Harvard article so compellingly states: “A lifestyle
without institutional context is like Monopoly money. It resembles
true currency, but lacks the essential shared meaning that provides
its value.”
ProtectMarriage.com needs your support to continue
the fight for unique benefits that only traditional marriage can provide.
The basic foundation of the family rests squarely on the institution
of marriage, and as the Harvard article states, “When the social institution
of marriage disappears, what remains is a motley crew of lifestyles.”
That cannot be beneficial to the couple, the children or society as
a whole.
God bless you,
Ron Prentice, Executive
Director
ProtectMarriage.com
www.protectmarriage.com
