Why ‘yes’ on Proposition 8?: ‘Biology, not bigotry’ is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage.


by Maggie Gallagher
Los Angeles Times
November 01, 2008

As I travel across California and the country making the case for Proposition 8, I’m often asked, “Why do you care about restoring marriage?”

It’s a good question, and not just for me. Why are so many Californians rushing to street corners to hold up “Yes on 8” signs, enduring petty vandalism, and even pettier insults, to make the case for voting yes on Proposition 8?

It’s simple: Government did not create marriage. Marriage is older than the U.S. Constitution, older even than the Bible or the Koran. Marriage’s deepest roots are in human nature and human experience. Marriage, as a judge on the Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in his compelling dissent to that court’s recent ruling allowing gays to wed, is rooted “in biology, not bigotry.”

Marriage is a virtually universal human social institution with a certain recognizable shape: It is a public union, not just a private union; it’s a sexual union and not some other kind of union; it’s a union in which the rights and responsibilities of men and women toward each other — and toward the children of their union — are publicly defined and supported, not merely left up to individuals to figure out privately.

Why do so many diverse societies arrive at this core marriage idea? There is something special about unions of husband and wife.

The answer is not hard to see. When a baby is born, a mother is bound to be somewhere close by. But if we want fathers to be there for children, and the mothers of their children, biology alone will not take us very far. We need a cultural mechanism to connect fathers to the mother-child bond. We also need an institution that communicates to the next generation — in the throes of its own erotic and romantic dramas — how seriously society takes the need to discipline those dramas so that children do not get hurt.

The word for the way society makes this connection, not only in California but in virtually every known human society, is “marriage.” Marriage is a union of husband and wife because these kinds of unions are distinctive and necessary to the whole society.

If Californians vote no on Proposition 8, the great historical cross-cultural meaning of marriage will be replaced by the new government dogma on which gay marriage is based: There is no difference between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions; anyone who thinks otherwise is just a bigot.

Our children will imbibe this new dogma in hundreds of ways, and the old marriage idea — marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, long for a mother and a father, deserve a mother and a father — will be publicly discredited as discriminatory.

A victory for Proposition 8 will not deprive same-sex couples of a single practical right or benefit under California state laws. Civil unions will continue to provide legal protections for same-sex families. But the people of California will reclaim from four state Supreme Court justices the right to define marriage as a union of husband and wife, for generations to come.

Maggie Gallagher is president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is a major contributor to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

Advertisements

Liberty Sunday Address on Gay Marriage


by Mitt Romney
Tremont Temple Baptist Church, Boston MA
October 15, 2006
(source)

Thank you! What a group! Welcome to this historic city.

And you know that the authors of liberty recognized a divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion, and they proscribed the establishment of any one religion.

But today there are some people who are trying to establish one religion: the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional values, they reject the values of our founders and they cast aside the wisdom of the ages.

Their allies are activist judges — and here in Massachusetts activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization: the family. They ruled that our Constitution requires people of the same gender to marry.

I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. They said that if heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual couples have to also be able to marry to have equal rights.

But what they ignored is that marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father.

Of course, the principal burden of this court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults — it falls on children.

We’re asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent “heterocentricity,” mother and father would become “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

An elementary school teacher reads to her second graders from a book titled “The King and the King,” about a prince who marries a prince — and a second grader’s father is denied the right to have his child taken out of that classroom while the book is being read.

Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic Charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.

The price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults.

In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people. I believe God loves all of his children, that no one is abhorred — that regardless of the differences and different choices, we should show that same respect. As Americans, we must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry.

Massachusetts is on the frontline of marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what’s happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. This spreading secular religion — and its substitute values — cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of the family, or the faith of our fathers who “more than life, their country loved.”

Thank you so much.