Friday, May 15, 2009

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC.

I am told that Governor Gregoire has scheduled the signing of SB 5688 for Monday. I am also told that the sponsors of the bill will join her in celebration. Once the bill is signed, the Secretary of State will authorize and release us to begin gathering signatures for Referendum 71. I am told this could take a few days as well. It appears that when we are finally able to go on the referendum, we will likely have only about 60 days remaining to collect the signatures. Many are declaring our defeat before we begin. Some who should be supporting are sitting it out.
We believe in miracles. We also believe in the people who stand for marriage. Together, with God's help, we believe we can get this referendum on the ballot. To say we need your support and help would be an understatement. We will keep you updated.

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Over the next few weeks I will take a few days to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage.

The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, "Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting," written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and yes, if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details). If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it--parent and child.

One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, "If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can't we?" Or, "If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can't homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?"

Marriage equality.

Here's something to consider.

I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.

Here's the problem with that.

These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.

Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.

In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.

Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:

*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.

The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.

The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.

Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.

Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex "marriage". But all societies need what they call natural marriage.

Consider this.

Could society be harmed by too much same-sex "marriage"? Of course, if all or a majority of "marriages" were same-sex, a society would disappear.

On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.

Natural marriage cannot be regarded as "equal" in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.

"Marriage equality" cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.

SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.

To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.

If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.

We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.

Consider this:

"If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done."

"God's ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother's womb." Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.

Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.

There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.

Thank you for standing with us.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.