Thursday, April 23, 2009

Protecting Marriage is Protecting Children

In the vigorous debate over homosexual marriage, most adults have very strong feelings and are not hesitant to share them. Yet one part, the most important part of the marriage debate---the child, is rarely consulted and often not considered.

I have watched homosexuals bring their children forward at the hearings in Olympia as they testified in favor of various homosexual rights bills and ask their child to make a plea to the lawmakers. As the little kids said what they were supposed to say, I have wondered how they really felt---and, does anyone really care?

As a youth pastor in Hollywood, I have walked with and ministered to kids who were raised in homosexual homes. It was not pretty.

Protecting marriage is protecting children.

David Blankenhorn wrote an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times last September 19, prior to the vote on Prop. 8.

His column begins with, "I am a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage."

He says, "Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position."

"But," he says, "I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion."

His "different conclusions" if read with an open mind, will give anyone, except perhaps a hard core homosexual activist, reason for pause and reflection.

I have summarized his "different conclusions," as a liberal Democrat and taking an honest look at homosexual marriage. I have also linked his column.

*In all societies marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.

*Marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it a license to receive benefits or social recognition.

*Marriage is primarily a license to have children.

*Marriage is a gift that society bestows on it's next generation.

*Marriage unites the three cord dimension of parenthood---biological, social and legal---into one pro-child form.

*Marriage is society's most pro-child institution.

*Child Trends, a non partisan research group has found that family structures clearly matters for children and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents.

*Children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into the world. The 1989 U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right.

*Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him.

*We must be permitted to openly discuss what our society owes it's children. Particularly when looking at legislation like Prop. 8.

*Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father?

*Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another?

*Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children?

*How many parents per child is best?

*In regard to same-sex marriage, children are rarely consulted.

*"I believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her."

*"I believe that we, as a society, should seek to maintain and strengthen the only human institution ---marriage---that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children".

His conclusion is this:

"Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation, further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing---the gift, the birthright---that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support"

Consider forwarding this blog to friends, family and those whom you feel could benefit from it.

God bless you.

____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

21 comments:

  1. Gosh how vague and self-serving can an op-ed be?

    Ignore that today only 47% of licensed straight married couples are raising children, yet 33% of lesbian households and 20% of gay households are without the benefit of the contract. If marriage is about the children then all of these children should have licensed parents!

    lgnore that the children will be raised by these parents regardless if the parents can l license the civil contract or not, its childish pique harmful to children to deny their parents the same government tools to make their family better.

    Ignore that half of marriages in the US do not produce children between the married partners, if marriage is only for the breeding couple, why are these allowed license?

    The solutions alluded to by the author are not even part of the marriage equality debate. He is in reality whining about too easy divorce, parental disengagement and parental self-involvement which are issues that have nothing to do with the gender combination of the parents.

    His answers are not revelations but just more of the same rationalizations for prejudice that have no underpinnings in reality we have heard so many times before.

    If the civil contract of marriage is for the benefit of the children then it would be best to get all parents raising children married, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting, Blankenhorn must be the only "liberal democrat" alive, who has served on boards for Republican Presidents, but not for any Democratic ones. If I were as skeptical and uncharitable as some, I'd call that a lie perhaps even a "big lie", instead I'll just point out this interesting fact and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The save the children argument is a tired lie.

    Children in same-sex families deserve the same legal framework opposite sex couples enjoy. Should a child of a same-sex couple be economically burdened if one of their parents dies and the other parent is forced to pay higher inheritance taxes than different sex couples because they can not marry?

    Should the child of same sex couple's safety be jeopardized while one of the parents tries to explains his/her rights in an emergency hospital room when important decisions need to made?

    Give me a break Randall. You are just trying to use fear to scare people into siding with you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By denying same sex marriage, you are denying people their first amendment right to religious liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. excuse me? 'denying same sex marriage, --had NOTHING to do with first amendment rights(they would not even speak of it anyway!)

    about 'religious liberty'--our founders were more concerned of the government getting into their business, as was done from their previous country--NOT the other way around

    ReplyDelete
  6. Logic has left the building...

    Whether we deny same-sex families the protection of marriage or not, same-sex couples will still have and raise children. Just like in the straight world, children are born inside and outside of marriage.

    So, is it really in our best interests for our government to place hardships on the children of same-sex couples, by denying the family marriage, just because they were born in a same-sex family? How does that help children overall?

    The gender of the parents is not the only factor that determines the health and happiness of children. There's also love, financial means, education, etc. That means that some gay families are better for raising children than some straight families. Banning all gay families from marriage denies some kids of good parents the protections of marriage, while awarding those same protections to bad parents, just because they are opposite sex. Where’s the logic in that?

    The argument against same-sex marriage falls apart even if you accept one of the lies pushed by the right, and widely disputed by professional pediatric groups: that, all other factors being equal, it's always "better" to raise a child with opposite-sex parents than same-sex parents. But let’s just pretend that’s true for a moment. Then, is it really in our best interests to put additional "hardships" on the children of gay couples by denying their parents marriage, just because they’re already “disadvantaged” because their parents are of the same sex? No, our government should be doing everything possible to give those children and families every opportunity to be successful, too.

    Marriage is not an "award" for being opposite genders, and opposite genders does not guarantee successful parenting. Allowing same-sex couples to marry goes not harm children in opposite-sex families in anyway, but it offers enormous protections for children in same-sex families. The net effect is more children who are better off.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary, I'm not sure how this posting violates any of your posting rules.

    ****

    Logic has left the building...

    Whether we deny same-sex families the protection of marriage or not, same-sex couples will still have and raise children. Just like in the straight world, children are born inside and outside of marriage.

    So, is it really in our best interest of our government to place hardships on the children of same-sex couples just because they were born in a same-sex family? How does that help children overall?

    The gender of the parents is not the only factor that determines the health and happiness of children. There's also love, financial means, education, etc. That means that some gay families are better for raising children than some straight families. Banning all gay families from marriage denies some kids in good families the protections of marriage, while awarding those same protections to "bad" families. Where’s the logic in that?

    This argument falls apart even if you accept one of the lies pushed by the right, and widely disputed by professional pediatric groups: that, all other factors being equal, it's always "better" to raise a child with opposite-sex parents than same-sex parents. But let’s just pretend that’s true for a moment. Then, is it really in our best interests -- or the best interests of children in gay families -- to put additional hardships on them by denying their parents marriage, just because they’re already “disadvantaged”? No, our government should be doing everything possible to give those families every opportunity to be successful!

    Children in straight families have nothing to lose if gay couples can marry. But, when gay couples can marry, the benefits to their children are great.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait a minute. Same-sex marriage advocates tell us that the purpose of marriage is not procreative and therefore it should not be restricted to opposite genders.

    Then, they say they need marriage rights to protect the children - every one of which were produced via the framework of the sexual union between male and female. And even when no physical union occurred (e.g. in vitro), there is still the union of female and male.

    If procreation is not part of marriage then using children as hostages to promote same-sex marriage is a convenient but illegitimate argument.

    If children are a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage then procreation is an integral part of marriage.

    Those that try to have it both ways are revealing that they will say whatever they have to in whatever context they are in to insure the position that makes them feel good wins.

    Larry Rambousek

    ReplyDelete
  9. One other thing.

    Homosexuals have always had the same right as all other citizens to the rights of marriage. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    Same-sex marriage advocates counter that they cannot marry whomever they want. But no one has that right.

    I cannot marry my brother. I cannot marry two other people. Three women cannot marry each other.

    Further, same-sex marriage advocates have no intentions of allowing marriage rights for those relationships (and a multitude of other possible relational scenarios).

    Same-sex marriage is not about marital rights or marriage equality. It is about legitimzing homosexual relationships. And if they can call homosexual relationships marriage and place them on the same level as heterosexual relationships, they achieve legitimacy.

    That is why you hear these couples say that marriage will give them "respect".

    If any type of relationship can be called marriage then homosexual relationships are no longer held up as special. And for a radical totalitarian movement, that long ago left the fight for true equality, that is not allowed.

    Larry Rambousek

    ReplyDelete
  10. Children need a MAN and a WOMAN in their lives--period! NOT a Jane and Jane or John and John--sigh--give it up--Children are from a MAN and a WOMAN--thus to be RAISED by them --period! This is GOD's plan, this is how He set things up--for the GOOD OF THE CHILDREN!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I still don't understand why this issue is so important to F & F .
    I suspect that there is a fear factor. Please explain why this issue is so important to you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wait a minute. Same-sex marriage advocates tell us that the purpose of marriage is not procreative and therefore it should not be restricted to opposite gendersCorrect, about 50% of licensed marriages do not procreate between the two contract holders, to say that its just unthinkable to increase that number by 1 or 2% is just obviously rationalization.

    Then, they say they need marriage rights to protect the children - every one of which were produced via the framework of the sexual union between male and female. And even when no physical union occurred (e.g. in vitro), there is still the union of female and male.About 50% of US children are raised by other than their 2 genetic contributors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not a fear factor! A precaution factor. To stay within God's princples. To be aware that society is going down the wrong road! To be obedient to God's ways, as to how He set up what a family should be--one man/one woman creating children. To 'attempt' to tell/show others the importance of staying within this guidelines He has set up for us all!Not fear, a MISSION!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon at 4/23 11:06 PM,

    While I don't have a problem invoking God (after all, D. Martin Luther King invoked God and Hebraic-Christian values as the basis for the civil rights movement), one only has to look at nature to see that marriage is a recognition of how nature works, that is, that it is male and female coming together in a sexual union that produces children.

    The concept of a homosexual family is therefore an oxymoron.

    Nature has determined what is best for children. That is man and woman.

    That is why throughout history no culture, secular or religious, has ever had same-sex marriage. It was always some variation of male-female; whether one man, one woman, or one man, many women, etc. The pattern has always been the union of male and female.

    ReplyDelete
  15. RalphInEverett,
    Perhaps F&F feels like I do - that same-sex marriage is not good public policy and is being promoted through lies and action that are destructive of our constitutional republic.

    Larry Rambousek

    ReplyDelete
  16. one only has to look at nature to see that marriage is a recognition of how nature works, that is, that it is male and female coming together in a sexual union that produces children.Actually looking how nature works shows that adults can marry no matter what their gender combination - and far more don't produce children that are male-female than are same gender. Trying to evoke 'nature' is what supports marriage equality, trying to use it to deny is just sophistry.

    The concept of a homosexual family is therefore an oxymoron.If all children were raised by their genetic contributors only you might have a case, as it is you don't.

    It was always some variation of male-female; whether one man, one woman, or one man, many women, etc. The pattern has always been the union of male and female.And now it isn't. That's what you seem to have missed - same gender marriages are happening that that's not going to change. All the whining is about letting them license the same government tools for the betterment of their families that other familes do. That's all - as far as 'marriage regardless of gender combination' that ship sailed years ago and there is nothing you can do about it - its not the decisions on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oshtur,

    You have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how do not procreate (whether they are unable or unwilling).

    The fact is they are still in the framework that nature intended. Homosexual unions do not! That is a basic (and obvious) fact of nature. To ignore that fact is the rationalization.

    Secondly, you completely ignored my point that it is illegitimate to claim that one of the purposes of marriage is not procreative and then on the other hand point to the children of homosexual couples.

    Those two claims are contradictory. If a homosexual's children are pertinent to this debate then marriage, at least in part, is about procreation.

    Thirdly, you claim it is "unthinkable to increase [the number of non-procreative contract holders] number by 1 or 2%". Do you advocate a marriage of 3 men?
    If not, why is the arbitrary limit of 2? What's the harm of increasing the number of "licensed marriages do not procreate between the two contract holders" by another 1-2%?

    ReplyDelete
  18. His philosophy matches many of us who choose to stay within God's principles.Which is your right to do - what right you don't have is to tell everyone they have to follow your god's rules. We all have freedom of religion and that means others get to be free of yours and have a right to expect a equal treatment from government regardless of religion.

    You think your god doesn't want you to marry someone of the same gender, then don't! No one is going you force to. But that doesn't mean the government should only kowtow to your religion and ignore all the citizens that believe differently.

    Remember 66% of Washington state residents support marriage equality or civil unions per the recent University of Washington poll. You are on the losing side here when it comes to saying the state must ONLY pay attention to your view point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The fact is they are still in the framework that nature intended.No nature 'intended' that adults can naturally marry regardless of their gender combination otherwise we would have biological mechanisms were geared towards 'opposite' attraction and we don't - at no time does your body 'peek in your pants' engaging these mechanisms. As it is humans only have 'male'/'female' attraction mechanisms that can develop in adults of either gender. You can't just presume what 'nature intended', you have to actually look at how it really works.

    That is a basic (and obvious) fact of nature. To ignore that fact is the rationalization.Ironic talk again. ;) No you look at the research, the brain scans, the PET scans, the stroke recovery histories. Man and women can be attracted to men or women - that's what nature tells us - same biological mechanisms, same desires, same results, same benefits - its really the same. That's what's changed - our understanding of gender, attraction, pair-bonding and all their mechanisms and benefits. Yes, back when they thought genders were opposites, and they were attracted to opposites your contentions might have had merit but we know now they don't because they aren't the way we are naturally laid out.

    Secondly, you completely ignored my point that it is illegitimate to claim that one of the purposes of marriage is not procreative and then on the other hand point to the children of homosexual couples.Actually no I did address it in my very first reply - your error is you are confusing procreation, only one way that families get children, with child rearing. Again almost half of children in the US are NOT being raised by their 2 genetic contributors, almost half of marriages do not result in procreation between the two contract cosignees. Since we made no attempt to link the two conditions previously to suddenly say that such a pairing is paramount is again pretty self-serving and obviously false. Of course you can see that the civil contract benefits children REGARDLESS of how they came to be in their family, procreation being just one, almost a minority, way that happens these days.

    Do you advocate a marriage of 3 men?
    If not, why is the arbitrary limit of 2?
    Ah, a newbie! This is old hat and easily explained:

    The movement is for marriage equality, all citizens having equal license to the existing civil contract of marriage with their spouse. As it stands about 50% of the citizens are allowed license it with a male spouse, and 50% of the citizens with a female spouse, 2 sets of special rights based on the gender of the citizen.

    Marriage equality is about letting all citizens have license to the existing civil contract regardless of the gender of their spouse, i.e. all citizens having the same rights instead of 2 sets of special rights.

    This is different than allowing all citizens to do something that NO citizens have been allowed to do before, e.g. have multiple contracts, license a contract with someone already licensed, etc.

    That's what's changed, that's what's different - we know people aren't attracted to 'opposites' they are attracted to male or female and have them as spouses. So the question becomes why are only some citizens with male spouses allowed to license their marriage and not others (ditto with female)?

    That's why its called 'marriage equality' and that's why its the right thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oshtur,
    Ah, a newbie! This is old hat and easily explained
    Actually, I have been dealing with this subject for many years. See www.ncontx.bogspot.com and http://home.comcast.net/~ncontx/wr_index.htm for the evidence. In fact, your arguments have been answered numerous times. Same-sex advocates either dismiss them out of hand, reiterate their argument that was already refuted (a logical fallacy), or, as you did, talk in circles.

    For example, you state: Marriage equality is about letting all citizens have license to the existing civil contract regardless of the gender of their spouse, i.e. all citizens having the same rights instead of 2 sets of special rights.The fact is homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. They simply must adhere to the exact same criteria to which every other citizen must adhere, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements. So ALL citizens do, right now, have access to the existing civil contract.

    Second, it is intellectually disingenuous to claim you want all citizens to have access to the existing civil contract. The existing civil contract states that marriage is between a man and a woman. You advocate changing that. You only want to keep those parts of the existing civil contract which support the position you happen to like.

    Third, you still have provided no grounding for limiting marital relationships to two people. If marrying the opposite gender is inconsequential, if marriage is about “love and commitment” (which is the motto of same-sex marriage advocates) then limiting it to 2 is an arbitrary and therefore discriminatory and bigoted act.
    Oshtur, you are using the language of equality in order to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships. The rule of equality is you treat equals equally. While homosexual and heterosexual individuals are equal their relationships are not. One only needs to look at nature to see this fact.

    This is different than allowing all citizens to do something that NO citizens have been allowed to do before, e.g. have multiple contracts, license a contract with someone already licensed, etc.Let me get this straight, Oshtur, You wouldn’t allow more than 2 people to marry because that has never been allowed before. But no citizen has ever been allowed to marry a person of the same sex before and you would allow that. Oshtur, apparently you think you can make any statement in any context as long as it makes you sound morally superior, without regard to logic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The fact is homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. They simply must adhere to the exact same criteria to which every other citizen must adhere, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements. So ALL citizens do, right now, have access to the existing civil contract.Which as I pointed out is legalistic sophistry - some men naturally marry men, some women women. And so what you are saying is some citizens can't license their marriages to a man even though many others can. That's discrimination and pretending people are different when they really aren't to prop up that discrimination.

    The existing civil contract states that marriage is between a man and a woman.No, merely its licensing restrictions, not the contract itself. If you got a fishing license and they changed the age limit from 18 to 16 would the actual contract with the state be changed? No, merely the licensing criteria for the contract would be changed. This is about a licensing restriction to be changed to allow all citizens equal license to the civil contract rather than 2 sets of special rights to the contract.

    Third, you still have provided no grounding for limiting marital relationships to two people.Of course I haven't, its not part of the issue. This is a equal access issue - a drive to let all citizens have the same rights that other citizens already have - some citizens already can have a male spouse or a female spouse, this is about letting all citizens have the same right to a spouse.

    But no citizen has ever been allowed to marry a person of the same sex before and you would allow that. Oshtur, apparently you think you can make any statement in any context as long as it makes you sound morally superior, without regard to logic.No its more you don't understand what logic means. There are two ways to look at gender combination, the false option of 'opposites' when biologically we don't have a single mechanism that works that way, or by gender, attraction to male or female which is how all our bonding mechanisms key. That's different about this situation -there are two ways to look at our issue of contention and the way our bodies actually work is in the attraction-to-gender way. Yes you can misrepresent that as 'opposites' but that is just a way to ignore that there are men attracted to men and women attracted to women, naturally, biologically.

    There are no alternative ways for any of these other restrictions, a sister is always a sister, under age is always underage, another species is always another species, more than one contract is more than one contract.

    So your contention is that it is the 'opposite' aspect that is important - prove it. We live in a country based on the concept of innate individual rights - explain to me why one citizen who naturally marries a male spouse should have license to the state contract and another citizens who does so by the exact same biological mechanism should not...

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.