The Same-sex “Marriage” War: Why the Traditional Definition Should Remain the Standard

“We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past,
and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.”
-President Barack Obama
“Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize” December 10, 2009

Preface

I would like to preface my words by stating that my opinions are not meant nor should be taken as personal attacks to those who identify as homosexual.  I love and value them as people and my heart goes out to them in any valid injustices they suffer.  If nothing else I say is understood in the way I intend it, please understand this: loving people who identify as homosexual and opposing same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive.  There is a difference between loving a person and actively endorsing his or her actions.  My statements are to address the issues involved in defining marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.  Marriage affects all of society, not just the alleged rights of a minority.

Introduction

On December 10, 2009, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.  In his acceptance speech, he talked of war between and within nations, its realities, and its consequences.  While pondering his remarks, I could not help but see a parallel in his message to a central focus in America’s “culture wars”—namely, genderless or so-called same-sex “marriage”.  I use his speech as a both a backdrop and a point of departure.  As such, his statements are sometimes used in a different context than his strict original intention.  Nevertheless, I believe the comparisons are valid and the principles completely applicable.  Like the President, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of [marriage].  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require . . . vision.”[1] Unlike the President, I argue that if he or this nation truly espouses the principles he invokes in his Nobel speech, then the first step to strengthening marriage is to reverse the trend that has led us to even consider including same-sex couples into the institution of marriage.

(more…)

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

Adoption is an important, yet peripheral issue in the relationship of the family to society. It is peripheral because typically, the percentage of children who are adopted instead of being cared for by their biological parents is rather small. It is nonetheless important because the societal standards surrounding adoption reflect the values and beliefs of the society. The standards may include informal norms and social expectations, as well as legislation passed by elected bodies, and policies formed by public and private adoption agencies. The subjects of those social rules range from the social norms under which biological parents voluntarily place children for adoption, the legal rules under which their consent is secured, and the conditions under which agents of the state may remove children from biological parents and place them for adoption. Society will also have a set of shared understandings, laws and social norms about the terms under which adults unrelated to the child may be considered as acceptable adoptive parents. All of these standards reflect the values of the society. (more…)

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children. (more…)

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

First published at Townhall.com July 14, 2008.

I propose a toast. Let me tell you why, and to whom. Here in San Diego, gay rights activists are organizing a boycott against the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, an elegant downtown hotel with magnificent views of the San Diego Bay, Coronado Island, and the Pacific Ocean beyond. Why? Because its owner, Douglas Manchester, has the audacity to support the radical notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. On a local talk radio show, gay activists describe him and anyone else with these views as hateful.

Douglas Manchester is the Chairman of the Manchester Financial Group, (more…)

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

This article was first published at Mercatornet.com on June 26, 2008.

Britain and Canada are well ahead in the race to make fatherhood completely redundant.

Last fall, I debated same-sex marriage at a university in Florida. I argued that treating same-sex unions identically with marriage would lead to marginalizing fathers from the family even more than they already are. At the time, I viewed that as a long-term prediction. I did not realize I would be proven correct in less than a year. (more…)