Join Mailing List

June, 2003
Originally appeared in Meridian Magazine

By Professor Richard G. Wilkins

The biggest battle yet to defend traditional marriage and the natural family is likely to begin in the next few weeks. I expect that any day now the Massachusetts Supreme Court will hand down a decision on a case that will legalize same sex marriage in that state. When it does, the campaign by homosexual activists and their liberal allies to force all states to recognize same-sex "marriage" will get a major boost. But it will also mean that it will be more important than ever for those of us committed to defending marriage and the natural family to become involved in the political arena to protect them.

Polls consistently show that a substantial majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage." Homosexual activists realize that they could not get any state legislature, even a liberal state like Massachusetts, to pass a same sex marriage law. So, they have turned to the courts to try to achieve their objective of forcing all states to recognize same-sex "marriage." Their strategy rests on a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as "The Full Faith And Credit Clause." This provision basically requires that a contract that is legal in one state shall be recognized as legal by all the states. If the courts apply it to marriage, this provision would require that every state must also recognize a marriage that was legally performed in any state, such as Massachusetts, and they will have achieved their goal.

Unfortunately, the only way to protect the citizens of other states from being forced to accept these marriages as legal, with all that entails, is to amend the Constitution to prevent a court from applying the Full Faith And Credit Clause to marriage. A constitutional amendment to do that was introduced in the last Congress and has recently been re-introduced in the current Congress as H.J.Res. 56. (For more information on this amendment and why passing it is so essential, as well as to sign up for periodic updates on this serious threat to marriage and the family, please go to www.defendmarriage.org. This is the Web site of Defend Marriage, an organization I started specifically to defend marriage and the natural family in the political arena.)

This campaign to legalize same-sex "marriage" is nothing less than a modern attack on the future of America. It is cloaked in terms of "tolerance" for "lifestyle choices," but the assault is nothing less than an attempt to drain the concept of marriage of all principled meaning: to make marriage merely a "personal" notion devoid of the social content.

To win this social war being waged on us, those advocating same-sex "marriage" must convince Americans that the institution of marriage has nothing to do with childbearing and child rearing. Eliminating this essential element of marriage inevitably will have serious negative impacts on the family. By changing the way society views the traditional institution of marriage, it will also inevitably change the way society views the importance of the natural family. This changed perception can only weaken the family at a time when it is already under increasing assault from other quarters as well.

We in this country, and any society that hopes to remain strong and resilient, have an undeniable and compelling interest in preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Alternative marital relationships, which by definition sever marriage from child bearing and child rearing, are fraught with profound difficulties. Stripped of its place as the legally protected and socially desirable environment for having and rearing the rising generation, marital relationships would become nothing more than mutually agreeable sexual or emotional unions.

Marriage between a man and a woman, unlike any other sexual relationship, furthers society's profound interest in the only sexual relationship that has the biological potential for reproduction: union between the two sexes. Homosexual couplings do not have the biological potential for reproduction: children are possible only by means of legal intervention (e.g., adoption) or medical technology (e.g., artificial insemination or cloning). The potential procreative power of a union between a man and a woman is the basis for society's compelling interest in preserving - and defining - marriage.

Marriage has been established to further not mere sensory experience, but as the U. S. Supreme Court has noted, society's "very . . . survival." The law has always recognized the vital distinction between sexual practices and procreation. The undeniable and well-grounded principle that has guided mankind for generations is straightforward: there is a fundamental difference between procreative sexuality and non-procreative sexuality.

Furthermore, should American law abandon the principle that reproductive sex has a unique role, we will be left with no basis upon which to draw principled distinctions between sexual relations that are harmful to individuals and/or society, and relations that are beneficial. The same arguments that would require state recognition of same-sex marriage would also require state protection for any consensual sexual practice. Once the principled line is abandoned that now separates sexual activity with the possibility of procreation from any and all other sexual activity, we are left with nothing more than sex as a purely sensory experience.

The consequence would be that the purely sensory experience cherished by any given sexual partnership, such as by partners in a same-sex "marriage," will be no more or less precious than the purely sensory experience valued by another sexual partnership, no matter how socially repugnant. Thus, should our society depart from the established definition of marriage, there will be little (if any) principled ground upon which to deny marital and familial status to any and all consensual sexual groupings -- even those involving sexual intimacy with children. It is easy to see how damaging this would be to the family and to society generally.

Finally, a wealth of social science data, much too voluminous to even summarize in this article, demonstrates that dual-gender parenting is essential to the successful social, emotional and civic development of children.

Therefore, if we want to maintain the health of American society, we have a compelling interest in promoting and preferring marriage between a man and a woman. The only sure way to protecting that compelling interest is by adopting the proposed Marriage Amendment to the constitution. It is essential to not just to protect marriage and the family, but the very future of our nation.

Richard Wilkins is a professor of law at Brigham Young University. An internationally recognized expert on legal issues related to marriage and the family, he is also the managing director of BYU's World Family Policy Center.