B. Gehling, a physical therapist and source in Minnesota Public Radio's Public Insight Network explains why his parents' marriage mattered to him when growing up and what this tells us about marriage:
"...My personal experience deeply affects my opinion on the proposed amendment. I grew up on a farm in southeastern Minnesota. If I was not in school or playing basketball, you would have found me doing livestock chores, hauling grain, baling hay or plowing the field.
I shared in this labor with my family, but most closely with my father, who was my role model. In fact, I was fortunate to spend a good amount of time with both parents on a daily basis. I was also raised Roman Catholic and willingly attended Mass every Sunday with my entire family. But none of these facts was as crucial to my development as this one: the marriage of my father and mother.
... One does not need to be Catholic, or follow any religion whatsoever, to understand why true marriage is, and always has been, between one man and one woman for the good of children and thus the whole of society. What is marriage, objectively speaking? My response will particularly keep in mind children. Children are most at risk if not protected by marriage and are the very hope of a stable and thriving society in the future.
... If marriage is redefined, fatherhood becomes no longer essential or even important. When marriage is no longer exceptional, the costs are high, and the children pay the price.
The implications of not accepting the marriage amendment would affect everyone legally and possibly result in a further loss of basic constitutional freedoms. The true definition of marriage, as it has always been implied, would be changed. Since the state has now given us the choice to define marriage as it is already understood, it is our duty and privilege as citizens to vote yes for the amendment. -- Minnesota Public Radio
15 Comments
Beautifully stated. Only real marriage connects all aspects of our family tree, roots to branches, in meaningful perpetuity.
On more than one occasion the opposition has claimed on this blog that children don't have a right to a mother and father. By extension, those same children, apparently, don't have a right to know their roots, their rich family history, their very origins. It's been said that children are not pets. Not a perfect comparison, since even pets are afforded more rights than the opposition gives to children.
From the post: "If marriage is redefined, fatherhood becomes no longer essential or even important."
Fatherhood will always be important. We see the breakdown in those communities where fathers are absent, e.g., the 70% of fatherless kids in African American communities.
I haven't heard Obama mention the importance of fatherhood lately like he used to do.
Interesting that today same-sex couples are not allowed to marry and still some children still grow up without a mother or father at home.
If the real concern is having children grow up with a mother and father, outlaw divorce.
Carlos,
The children you write of are caught up in unfortunate situations that we must make allowances for; whereas the ideology you subscribe to will deny a child access to at least one biological parent by design.
Could you just imagine a child that is raised in a familial construct that denies him/her access to a biological parent trying to tell their care giver that they feel as though something is missing from their life only to be told that they are a hateful unappreciative bigot for suggesting they sense something is missing?
Marriage corruption supporters are the personification of evil.
'If the real concern is having children grow up with a mother and father, outlaw divorce.'
Divorce is not pleasant, but it happens. However, deliberately putting a child in the situation of not having a mother and father is an entirely different story.
This author was very insightful when he noted how redefining marriage effects fatherhood, uniquely. This is a key that many Americans must understand and focus on.
The interesting thing about fatherhood is that it is vitally important for society, but fragile as well. In the words of Margaret Mead: "Motherhood is a biological fact, while fatherhood is a social invention." A 1996 (I'm sure there are newer sources) report on responsible fathering states: "Sociological and historical work on fathering makes it clear that fathering (at least beyond insemination) is fundamentally a social construction." http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/concept.htm
One could argue--and many do--that the primary purpose of marriage is to craft that very social construction of responsible fatherhood by directing the male impulse for reproduction into a stable channel that is conducive to paternal investment.
In this channel, a man and a woman share their lives in a socially approved, sexually exclusive relationship, thus making a way for: 1) the child's father to be known by society, and the child and her father to know each other; and 2) a lifestyle of cooperation between the mother and father, where he can put his energies towards the mother and child's well-being without obstruction.
It's plausible that redefining marriage to say that it's merely about romantic coupling could negatively affect the purposes of marriage. A lot of SSMers in academia feel that way, and support ssm for that very reason (they feel it is too "patriarchical," he he).
Combine the demotion of marriage to a pretty label for special relationships, with the state's deeming of the idea that children need a mother and father as "bigoted," and we have a recipe for a decline in fatherhood.
There won't be a decline in motherhood, because there is no such thing as "gender neutrality" when it comes to matters of reproduction and child-rearing (though the quality of mothering will surely be adversely affected by father absenteeism).
This is why marriage is the linchpin of civilization. For in nature, most male animals impregnate, lack the ability to discern their offspring, and child-rearing is left to females. Civilization requires motherhood combined with fatherhood, and society hasn't figured out a better way to do that than marriage.
This important purpose is not to be used as a political football for special interest groups.
Thanks Ash: That was your best comment ever.
I love my father, and I've learned a lot from him. He has several degrees, he has a fulfilling job, he finds pleasure in his hobbies, and he is still happily married to my mother. None of the things I have learned from my father, though, are reliant on the fact that he has a penis. If he were female, he would have had the same impact upon my life.
No one talks of the other option to resolve this issue - that government decide separately from marriage or civil unions what is the Public Purpose of self-professed 'gay' relationships (starting from monogamous), without bunching up all the other same-sex relatinships.
Legislatures have been already having to decide what to do with single moms (and some single dads), meaning those who have engendered children of their own genes. The matter is getting out of hand in that it is easier now for a man to engender dozens or hundreds of children by -sperm- donation. These adult/children relationships already constitute a sideline to marriage, and on-average it isn't pretty (it leads to financial hardship, in essence a form of 'slavery' for many single dads or moms).
The truth is many men only care for sex with a woman (and this is no modern revelation), and it suits them fine to let the woman give birth, or abort, or raise the kids somehow. The result: government has to step in or deal later with problem citizens many of those children statistically grow into.
With the USA's generation 'gap', the lack of development of social skills in self-absorbed teenagers, who follow TV or school peer pressures, also leads to a false sense of 'independence'. Other countries don't separate the ages so extremely as in England and the USA, for a reason - it creates the generation gap. Only later do they realize they are not prepared to face the real world.
But of all of these systems of child-bearing, civil marriage is by far the most stable, financially the most rewarding, and children can experience what it is to have a blood-related brother or sister.
In blood-related families, they can more likely experience what it is like to (each) have BOTH a blood-related: brother and also a sister. The minimum number of blood-related children necessary for this to occur is 4 (if 2 boys and 2 girls engendered).
Genetic families (the 'nuclear' family, perhaps named so due to its inherent incredible positive energy, and family dynamics) with two sons and two daughters, are families in which each offspring have BOTH a brother and also a sister, so they learn even better how to deal with the opposite sex/gender. If the family is stable financially, they may have a a great, great time growing up, and develop very strong bonds that lead to the Extended Family. These children start out in life with a head start: they know who they can trust with their lives - they inherit a very advantageous 'network'. Not so, out in the real world of strangers and people wearing masks. Blood-relation has its pluses. 'Believe it or Not.'
Carlos: Turn on your brain, please. We must/should outlaw divorce? Is that a morality your are imposing on us? Do you understand the ramifications of outlawing divorce? For instance: a man loses his only job and ends up an alcoholic. He beats his wife for saying anything at all. He wants her to shut up. But when he has some sober moments, he acts lovingly towards her and the kids. The wife doesn't want another red eye, so she relocates with the children and a few possessions to her sister's home, and then meets a divorced man who acts lovingly towards her and the kids all the time. Do you still support the idea of outlawing divorce? I mean, you so easily leave that as our assignment. I mean for a civil marriage, not just a religious marriage. Your sidestepping of the issue of the definition of marriage leads to absurdity. But, you like absurdity. Now we understand clearly.
"If he were female, he would have had the same impact upon my life."
Well, not exactly. If "he" were a "she," she wouldn't be your father, and you might not be here. We're talking basic biology, here, folks. You might ask yourself what kind of a message or lessons you'd have learned from an absent father. Just a thought.
Marriage corruption supporters may have the NAACP on their side for now, but we have the laws of nature on our side for eternity.
Geez, Ash, that was an amazing comment. You should be making posts for all of us to comment on rather than posting comments that get buried as more posts and comments are made.
Really, really, great comment. Thanks for that.
Once again NOM attempts to tie two completely unrelated matters together as if they are somehow linked. They aren't.