WHY EVERY STATE AND OUR NATION NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

By David Andersen

After a hard fought battle, voters in Arizona, California, and Florida recognized the need for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. With the passage of Proposition 102 in Arizona, the following language will now be part of the Arizona Constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Similar language also will be part of the constitutions of California and Florida. California is the first state with court-mandated same-sex marriages to be overturned by the voice of the people. Thirty states now enjoy the protection of a marriage amendment in their individual state constitutions. While we still have work to accomplish, each of these victories is an important step in the fight to protect the family.

During the debate over these ballot initiatives, voters have heard numerous sound-bite arguments against passing a marriage amendment, most of which were based on misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the facts. The following list provides rebuttals to ten of the most common arguments that were proffered against the marriage amendment and an explanation of why Arizona as well as every other state and our nation need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

1. “Gay marriage won’t affect my marriage or family.” This common argument, which is based on false assumptions, is the red herring of the marriage debate. First, this argument ignores the existence of any harm that is not a direct and immediate harm on one’s own marriage and family. No rational person would argue, for example, that child pornography should be legalized because it “doesn’t affect my marriage or family.” Likewise, the harmful effects of genderless marriage (and homosexual behavior) on individuals, families, and society as a whole are well documented. See UFI Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation, available at www.unitedfamilies.org. Second, there is no such thing as “gay marriage.” Marriage is either man-woman marriage (retaining the importance of gender roles in marriage) or genderless marriage (removing any role of gender in marriage). The societal benefits that are lost by removing gender from the marriage equation are qualitatively and quantitatively apparent. See UFI Guide to Family Issues: The Marriage Advantage, available at www.unitedfamilies.org.

2. “There are more pressing issues than defining marriage.” Opponents of man-woman marriage often list a host of other societal problems that require more urgent attention than marriage—issues ranging from violent crime to economic hardship. To these opponents, marriage is simply a side issue used to distract voters from “real” issues such as gas prices and global warming. What these opponents do not appreciate, however, is that the root cause of many of the social and economic ills facing our nation and our communities is the disintegration of the family. This fact is borne out by the statistical advantages to a child who enjoys the right of being raised in a home with a mother and a father. These benefits include lower rates of teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol use, suicide, depression, sexually transmitted disease, academic problems, and poverty. See Benefits of Healthy Marriages, Department of Health and Human Services, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage. Similar statistical benefits are found among adults who enjoy healthy marriages, including lower rates of crime, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide as well as increased physical and emotional health, greater wealth, and longer life. Likewise, communities with higher rates of man-woman marriages experience parallel increases in rates of educated citizens, home ownership, and property values as well as decreases in rates of domestic violence, crime, and need for social services. Suddenly, most if not all of the seemingly “more pressing” issues take on a lesser role when one considers the unquestionable advantages to individuals, communities, and nations who embrace and preserve the institution of man-woman marriage. As a wise man once said, “No success can compensate for failure in the home.” Thus, while no marriage is perfect, the union of a man and a woman is the ideal means of promoting and sustaining the well-being of society. 

3. “Marriage is not a constitutional issue.” Unfortunately, activist judges have made marriage a constitutional issue. While opponents of man-woman marriage clamor that we should “keep politicians out of marriage,” unelected judges have already entered that realm and have caused great damage in overriding the will of the people. In California, for example, the California Supreme Court, in a 4 to 3 decision, recently mandated the recognition of genderless marriage and struck down a marriage law that had the overwhelming support of California voters (over 61 percent). Similar results have occurred in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Throughout the nation, the judiciary has been increasingly prodded by a powerful minority that has been unable to gain consensus through the legislative process and instead has hijacked the institution of marriage to push a broader cultural, social, and political agenda—namely, the acceptance and promotion of homosexual activity and lifestyle. Ignoring precedent and reason, a few judges have legislated from the bench a new kind of “marriage” under the guise of principles such as “privacy,” “dignity,” “liberty,” “equality,” and “fairness.” A constitutional amendment is the only way to stop the advance of this minority rule through judge-made law. No state judge has the authority to overturn a state or federal constitutional amendment, and no federal judge has the authority to overturn a federal constitutional amendment. Because our Founding Fathers understood the permanent nature of a constitution and its ultimate supremacy as a form of law, they enshrined certain bedrock principles into our federal Constitution. Many of these principles were those that had been called into question by tyrannical rule and lawlessness—principles such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and due process. Today, the very meaning of marriage—the most fundamental of all institutions in society—has been called into question. Therefore, the time has come to ingrain the definition of marriage into our state and federal constitutions.

4. “You can’t legislate morality.” Every law—be it a statute, an ordinance, or a regulation—legislates morality because laws are the central means by which society collectively draws lines between right and wrong. In our democratic republic, we have the freedom to voice our opinion and establish a moral consensus through the creation of civil and criminal laws. These laws define the consequences of peoples’ actions by encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad behavior. The most critical moral lines to draw, and therefore the most important laws, are those that support and defend the family. Strong families are the primary institution by which society transmits to future generations the moral strengths, positive traditions, and core values that educate, sustain, and protect civilization. Does defining marriage in the law legislate morality? Absolutely it does, and necessarily so. Preserving the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not only is beneficial to individuals, communities, states, and nations, but also is necessary to safeguard the very moral fabric of society.

5. “Gay marriage can provide the same level of benefits as man-woman marriage.” No other social institution has ever provided or will ever provide the same level of benefits as marriage between a man and a woman. Objective studies have consistently shown that man-woman marriage is, among other things, the optimal and most effective means of (1) bearing children; (2) raising children and providing for their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual welfare; (3) transforming males into husbands/fathers and females into wives/mothers; (4) bridging the male-female divide; and (5) channeling healthy sexual activity and discouraging unhealthy sexual activity. See Monte Neil Stewart, Marriage Facts, 31 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 313 (2008). Because of the great educational force that the law possesses and represents in society, legally changing marriage into a genderless social institution would redefine the core purposes of marriage in ways that will damage its abilities to protect children and to promote healthy familial relationships. The well established benefits of man-woman marriage, and the consequences of inhibiting or eliminating these benefits by redefining marriage, affect not only individuals, couples, and families, but society as a whole.

6. “Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married.” Marriage has a far more fundamental and influential role than simply the public or legal recognition of “love.” Many people love each other, but love is not the sole basis for allowing them to marry. Adults love children; children love each other; parents love sons and daughters; brothers and sisters love each other; and many people love their pets. If love and companionship were the only reasons for allowing people to marry, the possible arrangements would be limitless. If genderless marriage were to be established in place of man-woman marriage, the capacity of the law to prohibit other alternative marital arrangements—whether polygamous, incestuous, pedophillic, or otherwise—would be seriously curtailed if not destroyed altogether. More importantly, marriage as a legal institution would lose its primary meaning and purpose—namely, the recognition, support, and encouragement of a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage that provides the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised.

7. “People should be free to define ‘marriage’ for themselves.” The purpose of defining anything under the law is to preserve and to promote the order and stability of societal institutions. If people were left to define these social institutions for themselves, there would be no consensus on why these institutions exist and what purpose they serve. In effect the law would have no function. For example, if people were allowed to use whatever item they wanted as legal currency, the societal institution that we call money would have no purpose. Further, if people could define for themselves the meaning of criminal terms such as “theft” or “murder,” the institution of the criminal justice system would be useless. Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential because it preserves social stability and perpetuates life itself.

8. “Marriage is solely a religious institution that has no place in the law.” No one can deny the important role that marriage has in the doctrines of religions and the beliefs of religious adherents. However, such religious importance is no reason for the law not to recognize and value the social importance of man-woman marriage. Laws against murder, for example, are not prohibited simply because one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill.” Indeed, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Independent of the religious significance of marriage, civilizations and governments throughout history and throughout the world have recognized man-woman marriage and offered benefits to married couples to sustain familial relationships and to promote the best environment in which children can be reared. Indeed, a basic tenet of human rights is that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” See Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Removing man-woman marriage as the foundation of families would have severe negative consequences for the rights and welfare of both children and adults. Thus, regardless of whether marriages are performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, protecting and encouraging man-woman marriage is critical to the happiness and freedom of all people, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

9. “A marriage amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution.” Contrary to what the some argue, defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman does not “discriminate” against anyone as that term has been used by the opposition. Opponents of the marriage amendment use the word “discriminate” in the negative context of demeaning individuals and removing their rights. A marriage amendment does no such thing because it is not an attack on gays and lesbians. Rather, it is a recognition of what marriage is and has always been. Nothing legally prohibits an individual with homosexual tendencies from entering into the bonds of marriage as it has always been defined. In other words, anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. The dictionary definition of “discriminate” is to “distinguish” or “differentiate,” which is a feature of every law that explicitly or implicitly draws a line between right and wrong. A marriage amendment necessarily distinguishes and differentiates man-woman marriage from what it is not—namely, anything other than the union of one man and one woman.

10. “Gay marriage will not affect religious institutions or religious adherents.” Once again, recent history and logic do not support this argument. If genderless marriage takes over as the primary social unit of society, religious institutions and adherents will face (and already have faced) a social and political onslaught against their religious freedoms. While opponents laugh off these warnings as a speculative slippery slope argument, recent events provide concrete evidence of what happens when homosexual lifestyles are recognized and thereby legitimatized under the law. The first instances of these assaults against religious freedom occurred in the nations that initially adopted genderless marriage. For example, in Canada, a pastor who wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in opposition to same-sex legislation was fined $5,000 and ordered to cease publishing or making any statements that are “disparaging” of homosexuals. In Britain, a Christian leader was arrested for passing out leaflets that contained biblical quotes labeling homosexuality as a sin. These occurrences are not limited to churches and religious adherents outside the United States. This nation also has experienced a steady loss of religious rights of those who oppose homosexuality, particularly in states where “homosexual marriage” has been institutionalized. For example, a man in Massachusetts recently was arrested after refusing to allow his child to be educated through literature promoting genderless marriage, which school officials successfully contended was mandated by state law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that parents have no fundamental right to control the sexual education of their children in opposition to the policies of school officials. The New Mexico Civil Rights Commission found a Christian photographer liable for sexual orientation discrimination and fined her more than $6,600 after she declined to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Boston Catholic Charities was forced to cease its adoption services after state law mandated that it place children with same-sex couples. The state of New Jersey revoked the tax-exempt status of a Methodist church that refused to allow two lesbians to perform a civil union ceremony on its grounds. These real-life examples are only a sampling of what has happened and what will happen when the free exercise of religion is overridden in the name of sexual orientation equality.

Fortunately for families in Arizona, California, and Florida, voters recognized the dangers of failing to protect the institution of marriage as the foundation of a family and the cornerstone of society. We congratulate the supporters of Proposition 102 who worked so hard for the passage of Arizona’s marriage amendment, and we thank you for your support!  Let us continue the fight to preserve the most important institution that we have.