By Rachel Brody |
Marriage is a public institution (not purely a private relationship) because it serves two public purposes: bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race, and keeping together a man and woman to raise to maturity the children produced by their union.
The existence of future generations of children is fundamental to the survival of any society. The quality of their nurture is directly related to the quality of life within that society. Bonding the man and woman whose sexual union produces a child to one another and to that child is by far the healthiest way of insuring that nurture.
Opposite-sex relationships are the only type capable of producing children through natural intercourse, and the only ones assured of providing children with both a mother and a father. Affirming only opposite-sex relationships as "marriage" thus makes perfect sense.
The common sense understanding that children should have both a mother and a father is now supported by reams of social science data. The research leaves no doubt that children raised by their own biological mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children in any other living situation.
Changing the natural definition of marriage would amount to a declaration that procreation is unimportant, and that children do not need a mother or father. This would inevitably lead to a further deconstruction of marriage and the family—and fewer children being raised by a married mother and father—at a time when those institutions should be strengthened instead.
Where marriage has been redefined, we have already seen the forced subsidization of homosexual relationships, infringements on religious liberty, and aggressive pro-homosexual propaganda in the schools.
Research also shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner, and less likely to see their relationships last a lifetime. Incorporating this behavior into society’s concept of "marriage" would lead to a decline in commitment, fidelity, and permanence for marriages across the board.
It is no more "discrimination" to bar marriage to a person of the same sex than it is to bar marriage to a person who is already married, a close blood relative, or a child. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, we can be certain that a push for polygamy will not be far behind.
About Peter Sprigg Fellow at Family Research Council
Evan Wolfson Founder and President of Freedom to Marry
Brian Brown President of the National Organization for Marriage