| |
|
|
| |
 |
December, 2003 |
Those Who Think That Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Won't
Hurt Our
Children--and Our Children's Children--Better Think Again!
Dear Reader;
As I speak to various groups about the risks that legalizing same sex marriage poses to our
society, it is often clear to me that at least some in the audience think that I am exaggerating
the threats. I know they are asking "How can this hurt society and future generations? It is
only a tiny minority of individuals of the same sex who would ever even be interested in
'marrying'. What real difference could it make?"
There are several elements to my answer. First, no one should doubt that legalizing same sex
marriage will fundamentally and forever change the way future generations look at the institution
of marriage. Change is not automatically a bad thing. It can be how we progress. But it is not
automatically a good thing, either--especially when change means tinkering with the two
fundamental institutions, marriage and the natural family, that have been proven across cultures
and throughout history to be absolutely critical to the success of any society.
So, the key question is "Would legalizing same sex marriage strengthen or weaken marriage and the
family as we know it?" No advocate of legalizing same sex marriage has ever been able to make the
case that taking this action would strengthen marriage and the natural family in our society. And
we know from historical experience as well as just plain common sense that such a radical change
would not be neutral, that it would have no societal impact. The only question, then, is how
significant the negative impact would be.
A recent example we should all ponder carefully is the impacts the decision 30 years ago to
liberalize divorce laws has had on marriage and the family. That action has profoundly changed
the way our society looks at marriage, how serious a step it should be, how permanent the spouses
expect it to be and therefore the level of effort they are willing to invest in saving a troubled
marriage and even how society views those who have been divorced. The result? More divorces,
more families headed by single mothers, more of these families living in poverty, high rates of
delinquent child support, more children exhibiting a wide range of behavioral and social problems
and similar unfortunate consequences.
There can be no question that legalizing same sex marriage will cheapen our present view of
marriage. It would go from being the ideal-if often not achieved-institution in which to have
and rear children to something that is little more than legal recognition of a sexual/emotional
attachment between two people for their legal convenience.
It is essential to understand that the fundamental strength and resilience of any society comes
not from its laws or its form of government or even its material wealth. Rather, the common
characteristic of successful societies throughout history has been their ability to imbue into the
rising generation those values, traditions and attitudes that produce members of that society that
will do the things necessary to keep it strong and vibrant. Remove this ability of a society to
replace the older generation with rising generations having these essential traits and values and
that society is doomed.
To those who remain skeptical, I ask this question. Are we doing a better job of instilling these
essential values into the rising generation today than we did a generation or two ago? If they
answer "no," then my follow up question is, "why is that?" The primary reason is the breakdown
over the past generation of the natural family, a married father and mother raising their
children. Social science research in recent decades overwhelmingly validates the lessons of
history: the natural family is the essential basic unit of society because it is by far the most
successful way to produce the kind of members that successful societies must have. Whatever we
take to further weaken marriage and the natural family inevitably weakens our society and
threatens our future.
The "bottom line" is that all of the inevitable costs of legalizing same sex marriage will be
borne by the vast majority of Americans who oppose it. Any benefits accrue only to a tiny
minority of individuals. The only unknown is how large that price will be. By the time we can
begin to truly measure it thirty or forty years from now, it will be too late to do anything to
prevent that cost from compounding on into the future.
Looking at that equation, the only rational and responsible course for those of us in this
majority is obvious. We must do whatever we can to protect marriage and the family. Given the
growing problem with un-elected activist judges forcing their social agendas on us, one essential
action we must take is to amend the Constitution to protect marriage and the family.
Defend Marriage must become more active in this effort but to do that we need your help. For the
first time since we organized Defend Marriage, I am asking supporters to make a financial
contribution to support our efforts. Our recent partnership with United Families International
now gives us an efficient way to accept contributions no matter how large or small. Contributions
are also tax deductible, an important consideration for many people at this time of year as they
do year-end tax planning.
With the upcoming presidential and congressional elections next year and the actions of the
Massachusetts court decision forcing this issue to the center of the political stage, 2004 is
shaping up to be a pivotal year in deciding the very future of our society.
Please read through the contribution section below describing some of what we hope to do in 2004
to defend marriage and particularly the summary of our proposed "Massachusetts Project." Then,
please make as generous a tax-deductible contribution as you can to help us.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
P.S. You can help defend marriage even more by forwarding this newsletter on to others you think
might help! |
|
Please Make A Contribution To Our Efforts To Defend Marriage!
With the issue of legalizing same
sex marriage certain to be a major election issue, 2004 is shaping up to be a pivotal year in
determining the future course of our society. Next year may well offer the best opportunity we
will ever have to build support for an amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage in this
country as the union of a man and a woman.
Accomplishing this objective is the reason why Defend Marriage was organized. Defend Marriage has
always made the case for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage strictly on the basis of
social science research, historical analysis and just plain common sense. This approach sets us
apart from most of the other conservative, pro-family organizations that also support amending the
Constitution but do so largely for religious reasons.
This is a perfectly legitimate basis for supporting a constitutional amendment, of course.
But in a practical political sense, it is not as persuasive to some voters and members of the
media as the social science, historical and common sense case that Defend Marriage makes. To be
successful in the very difficult task of amending our Constitution, we will need to appeal to the
broadest possible range of voters and that means making the broadest possible case for an
amendment This is why Defend Marriage and the relatively few other groups taking this same
approach are so vital to a successful amendment campaign.
We urgently need your help have to make this social science/historical case much more vigorously
and effectively than t we have been able to do so far. Among other things, we need to augment the
examples of social science-based research and analysis already posted on our Web site and make it
more user-friendly. We need to mount a major Internet-based educational effort to reach as many
voters as possible and educate them on this issue and why a constitutional amendment is essential.
We need to lay this case out for the media, which is now largely ignoring it or does not
understand that it is a compelling argument in and of itself. And finally, and not least
important, we need to organize and encourage voters in key states and congressional districts to
contact their senators, congressman and state legislators to support an amendment. Defend
Marriage has well-developed and well-thought out plans and strategies to do this, but we need your
financial support to implement them.
We also need to take advantage of the rare opportunities we have to defend marriage in all of our
states by helping defend marriage in Massachusetts. As explained on our Web site in more detail,
the first step in the campaign of the homosexual activists and their allies to force all
the states to recognize same sex marriage has been to get a court in one state to do so.
Massachusetts has now done that. Their next step will be to start challenging in the courts the
inevitable refusal of other states to recognize these marriages.
While we will be active in defending marriage in the courts when it comes to that, we also must be
involved in efforts now underway in Massachusetts. The most significant and urgent of these state
efforts, and the one with the greatest national implications, is the drive to amend the state
constitution to specifically protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Teaming with our partner, United Families International, we can provide important help to the
people of Massachusetts in that effort. Just as it is essential in the national amendment effort
for the kind of social science/historical research and analysis approach that Defend Marriage
brings to this issue, it will also be essential in Massachusetts to reach those voters who will
also find this approach the most persuasive. All of us benefit if the people of Massachusetts, a
liberal state, amend their constitution to protect marriage because it will have huge positive
implications for the national amendment effort.
An additional bonus is that other effort by the Massachusetts legislature to deal with the
implications of the Goodridge court decision also will continue to generate intense national media
interest, giving us additional opportunities to educate a national audience as well. In many
ways, the effort in Massachusetts to defend marriage is the national effort to amend the U.S.
Constitution in microcosm. We must take advantage of the many opportunities it could offer to
contribute to the national amendment effort but we cannot fully do that without your financial
support.
A tax-deductible contribution can be made to support our effort through United Families
International, a 501(c)(3) organization, either
securely on line or by
using the print out mail in contribution form available on that Web page. A portion of all
undesignated contributions made to United Families International automatically goes to Defend
Marriage. If you would like to specifically designate your entire contribution for the Defend
Marriage campaign, simply make a contribution that ends in 4 cents (signifying that it is to be
put to use to support our efforts in 2004). That is, contribute $20.04, $100.04, $5000.04, etc.
United Families will then know to direct you entire contribution to Defend Marriage.
Whatever amount you can afford will help and will be put to good use immediately helping defend
marriage and the family. |
|
The Political/Judicial Watch
The decision of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge has understandably dominated recent political and legal news,
but there have been a number of other important and interesting developments. Among them:
- President Bush moved closer to an outright endorsement of a constitutional
amendment to define marriage in the U.S. as the union of a man and a woman. The President said in
a news interview "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor
marriage between a man and a woman, codify that…The position of this administration is that
whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced
by the state or at the state level." Article
here.
- The first session of the 108th Congress closed with 108 co-sponsors to H.J.Res.56, the
only constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman that has been
introduced in the House of Representatives. The complete list of co-sponsors is posted on our
Web site.
- Also in the closing days of the first congressional session, a companion constitutional
amendment to H.J. Res. 56 was introduced in the Senate with 6 co-sponsors. Colorado Senator Wayne
Allard introduced S.J.
Res. 26 joined by five other senators, Sam Brownback, Kansas, Jim Bunning, Kentucky, Jim Inhofe,
Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions, Alabama and Richard Shelby, Alabama.
- State courts in both Arizona and New Jersey have dismissed lawsuits filed by homosexual
activists in those states trying to force the recognition of same sex marriage.
- In the meantime, however, in a dramatic illustration of the impact that the actions of
one state inevitably will have on others, a judge in Iowa has granted a "divorce" to a lesbian couple
who had gone through a Vermont "civil union" ceremony. Even though he knew before signing the order
that he was dealing with a same sex couple and that Iowa has a state defense of marriage law and does
not recognize civil unions, he did so anyway. A group of six state legislators and a conservative
advocacy group, the Iowa Liberty and Justice Center, immediately filed suit to block the "divorce"
decree. Article here.
- In the first major political reaction to the Goodridge ruling, the Massachusetts legislature
will be meeting as a constitutional convention on February 11 to consider an amendment to the state
constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The state senate, meanwhile, has
asked the court whether a "civil union" law similar to Vermont's would satisfy their decision that
prohibiting same sex marriages is unconstitutional. The court has requested briefs on the issue,
suggesting that they might consider that it would. A summary of the reporting on this issue over the
past month by the Boston Globe, the state's major newspaper, is available
here.
- Wisconsin almost became the 38th state to pass a "defense of marriage law," but the
legislature was unable to override the governor's promised veto of the legislation.
- Several conservative groups in California have filed suit to block that state's
"domestic partnership" law. The groups claim that bill AB205 is simply "gay marriage by another
name" and therefore violates the intent of Proposition 22 passed by over 60% of California voters
several years ago which said marriage in the state was limited to the union of a man and a woman.
Article here.
|
|
Analysis and Opinion of Note
In the
"recent articles"
section on our Web site we highlight some of the most interesting and useful commentary on the
implications of the Massachusetts court's Goodridge decision. Featured items include a speech
by Defend Marriage Chairman Richard Wilkins and an op-ed piece by Eagle Forum President Phyllis
Schlafly. |
|
If this was forwarded on to you and you would like to subscribe
directly, please go to www.defendmarriage.org.
To unsubscribe, click here. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|