In Defense of Marriage

Colorado voters spoke clearly in November approving Amendment 43 which added to the state's Constitution the definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Voters also defeated a heavily funded effort known as Referendum I which would have advanced homosexual rights including domestic partnerships and gay adoption. Nonetheless, the Democrat majority at the state capitol is moving legislation to nullify the voter’s directive, and apparently it has the support of Governor Ritter [link].

House Bill 1330 would allow the adoption of children by two homosexual partners. The state already allows adoption by one adult, homosexual or straight, and proponents argue that two "parents" is better than one. Proponents, like the bill’s sponsor, Jennifer Veiga (D-Denver), say "this is not about whether you should have a gay marriage. It recognizes that there are different types of relationships out there. A number of people in those relationships have children, and what we’re saying is we’re not going to abandon those children."

The vast majority of Democrats, including the new Governor, were supporters of Referendum I, and the millions of dollars spent on the failed attempt to pass it came from their base of support – Tim Gill being at the front of the pack. With the Democrat’s appetite to move their agenda forward and please their contributors, it was far too predictable that what couldn’t be accomplished at the ballot box would be pushed through in the legislature with the Governor’s concurrence.

And, if they can't advance their agenda in big chunks, they'll settle for doing it a step at a time eroding the fabric and foundation of society and our culture.

A very thorough explanation of this whole struggle titled "Defining Marriage Down" by David Blankenhorn [link] appeared in a recent issue of The Weekly Standard, and I strongly recommend the entire article for your review. Blankenhorn is the President of the Institute for American Values and has also authored the book, The Future of Marriage. He explains research efforts conducted across the planet and explains meaningful correlations that answer arguments put forward regarding gay marriage.

Based upon his analysis, Blankenhorn concludes that "The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all."

Blankenhorn also documents that this cultural war is about much more than validating, legalizing, or codifying the union of two homosexuals. The proponents of gay marriage want to tear apart the institution of traditional marriage itself, and if they have to do it one brick at a time, they will, until the structure crumbles.

Consider this from Blankehorn’s article:

Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. She views the fight for same-sex marriage as the "vanguard site" for rebuilding family forms. The author of journal articles like "Good Riddance to 'The Family,'" she argues forthrightly that "if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise."

Similarly, David L. Chambers, a law professor at the University of Michigan widely published on family issues, favors gay marriage for itself but also because it would likely "make society receptive to the further evolution of the law." What kind of evolution? He writes, "If the deeply entrenched paradigm we are challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple, we should respect the similar claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit and against the romantic foundations of marriage."

Examples could be multiplied--the recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would "introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life"--but they can only illustrate the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage.

Think about it:

* "few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise"
* "challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple"
* "introduce an implicit revolt against the institution"

To be fair, I don’t believe that all of the supporters of Referendum I, nor the legislators supporting HB 1330 are rabid in their pursuit of the destruction of traditional marriage. But, they nonetheless joined the parade that is marching to the tune of that drum.

In our hands lies the responsibility to nurture and protect what we have inherited from our ancestors and our Creator. Great civilizations have come and gone throughout history – Egypt, Greece, Rome – what will be the enduring legacy of America? Or, what will hasten her demise?

I believe the greatness of America does lie in the strength of the family unit. Husbands, wives and children have clawed out generation after generation in this land, but they have typically done it by clinging to each other and for each other. If we tear down that institution, I believe you destroy the foundation upon which this nation is built and at our own peril.

The most outspoken proponents of gay marriage have a larger agenda. They would tear down the traditional family, the definition of parent, the institutions of religion and the "rules" that guide us, the laws of government, and the laws of nature and nature’s God. For with a blank slate, they can rewrite the rules and legitimize their agenda. They will do it as rapidly as we let them, or with as much patience as is necessary. But, rest assured, the war goes on.

Blankenhorn observes that "the big idea is not to stop gay marriage. The big idea is to stop the erosion of society's most pro-child institution. Gay marriage is only one facet of the larger threat to the institution." And he goes on to summarize his exhaustive analysis with this observation:

"By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. (Emphasis added) As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both."

I believe that if marriage between a man and a woman was good enough for Adam and Eve – and it was the plan of their Creator – then we ought not to mess with it.

God created man in his image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
Genesis 1:27-28