NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Children

The Cost of Same-Sex Marriage: Children's Well-Being and Happiness

“How are heterosexuals harmed by same-sex marriage?” “Why don’t you want two people of the same gender who love each other to be married?” “Same-sex parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.”

ThinkstockPhotos-185028425Many of those advocating to redefine marriage have sought to turn marriage and parenthood into a political cause. But the truth of the matter is that marriage and parenthood are anything but political. Rather, they are universal truths that are ontologically, sociologically, and not to mention, spiritually based.

Already, we see an increasing number of adults who were once raised in same-sex households speaking out about the void in their lives. These courageous individuals are giving a face to the powerful social research findings uncovered by researchers such as Mark Regnerus and others.

As more and more same-sex couples assert their "right" to children, the voices of the children themselves are becoming more prominent. Here are excerpts from two of them who are speaking out on why children will always want and always need a mom and a dad:

In an open letter published on Public Discourse, Katy Faust writes to Justice Kennedy, explaining not only how same-sex marriage hurts children, but how it encourages an alternative form of parenting that denies a child their right to biological parents. She writes:

ThinkstockPhotos-83115964While it’s true that parents will be missing from a child’s life for many different reasons, redefining marriage will change marriage as a whole and thus parenting for many kids. Because the government’s interest in marriage is children, and the historic basis for marriage has been a procreative relationship, this new genderless definition which excludes a mother or father actually encourages “one or both biological parents to be missing from a child’s life.”

She goes on to laud the UN for recognizing the right of a child “to know and be cared for by his or her parents”:

We should follow the lead of the UN and prioritize the rights of children, who have an inherent right to their parents. Adults have the right to choose to enter into a partnership that cannot produce children, and government should not prevent such a decision. But as a society, our laws must uphold and encourage the family structure that best protects children’s rights.

Another woman recently shared her story with The Christian Institute:

A woman raised by two mothers has admitted the experience was “damaging and confusing”, and has warned of the potential for “irreparable, long-term damage to a child”.

Hetty Baynes Russell, 58, said her unconventional parental setup fostered “a life of confusion and a lack of emotional security”, which landed her in therapy for many years, “trying to make sense of it all”.

"Far from being a healthy, nurturing state of affairs, this arrangement — where I was caught in a destructive, triangular battle for my mother’s affection with another woman, while forced to watch helplessly as my father was emasculated and airbrushed from our lives — was simultaneously damaging and confusing”.

As same-sex marriage proponents continue to push hard for marriage redefinition, they falsely claim that they are "on the right side of history.” However, as these voices and many others are telling us, factual history will never be on their side: history shows us that marriage is and has always been between a man and woman. Our ancestral identity, and the very fact that we are here today is a testimony to the natural union of a man and a woman. These children raised in same-sex households understand the cost of redefining marriage. Let's listen to them: the real voices from the same-sex marriage movement.

Designers Dolce & Gabbana: "The Only Family is the Traditional One"

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have spoken out strongly against same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.

The pair, business partners since 1985 who were once romantically linked, spoke out this past weekend about their support for the traditional family – children raised by a mother and father – while also expressing their belief about the irresponsibility of conception through surrogacy or IVF.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, Dolce and Gabbana explained their reasoning on these very sensitive topics:

The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”

Mr. Dolce has been attributed with the following remarks:

I'm not convinced by what I call chemical children, synthetic babies. They are wombs for hire, semen chosen from a catalogue.”

As Mr. Gabbana added, “The family is not a fad. It is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

Following this bold defense of the family, celebrities and other outspoken opponents have been calling for a boycott of the Dolce&Gabbana label, with the most vocal opposition coming from Elton John, who claimed the pair was “out of step with the times, just like your fashions.”

While Dolce and Gabbana continue to be attacked as “hypocrites”, what their critics have failed to do is prove them wrong. Every child is born to and deserves to be raised by a committed, married father and mother, and same-sex marriage will always strip away at least one essential piece of the family.

Bravo to Dolce and Gabbana for daring to speak the truth; they are as bold in their speech as they are in their designs, and deserve to be applauded. While others will continue to vent their disagreement, the billionaire pair are wonderful advocates for the true definitions of marriage and family.

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

 

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

No Child Deserves to Be Orphaned

459428949In today’s world, it is not unusual to hear of fathers who are so busy with their work that they hardly, if ever, have time to spend with their children. In a recent address to his general audience, Pope Francis warned that such a lifestyle creates “orphans at home.”

He explained that many problems children encounter can be traced to these “absentee fathers”- fathers who when physically at home, don’t take time to actually be with their kids.

The absence of the paternal figure in the life of little ones and young people produces gaps and wounds which can also be very grave. And, in fact, the deviances of children and of adolescents can in good part be traced to this absence, to the lack of examples and of authoritative guides in their daily life – to the lack of closeness, to the lack of love on the part of fathers. The sense of orphan-hood that so many young people live is deeper than we think.

They are orphans, but within the family, because the fathers are often absent, also physically, from home but above all because, when they are home, they do not behave as fathers, they do not have a dialogue with their children. They do not fulfill their educational task; they do not give to their children – with their example accompanied by words --, those principles, those values, those rules of life that they need.

470157601

Compared to his recent remarks praising mothers, Francis’s words for fathers seem harsh. However, the Bishop of Rome is not looking to praise only one parent or disparage the other, but rather highlight the importance of children being raised by both their mother and their father.

Francis stated that “a society without mothers would be a dehumanized society, for mothers are always, even in the worst moments, witnesses of tenderness, dedication and moral strength.” In the same way, a society without fathers is “lost”. Children look to their fathers as leaders of the family, as the one who will defend them and their mothers from the world, and quite simply, children need fathers for paternal guidance.

Francis himself acknowledged that his words were tough, but promised that next week he would speak about “the beauty of fatherhood.”

To state it simply, children need both a mother and a father. To deprive a child of one or the other is akin to orphaning them. Every child deserves a mother and father to foster, teach, and love them. No child deserves to be orphaned.

Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"

A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?

Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:

Purple Penguin“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”

So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.

“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.

As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:

178062396Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.

No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.

For a Strong Future, Children Deserve Committed, Married Mothers and Fathers

The importance of marriage to society is an irrevocable truth: for a society to even survive, there must be children. For children to be born, there must be fathers and mothers. For fatherhood and motherhood to exist, there must be commitment and sacrifice that will designate the male and female as a new union that will give society the needed foundation to flourish. That bond is marriage.

Dr. Scott Stanley examines a recent study showing that children with married parents are better off than children with unmarried parents.

Mother-Father-ChildTheir findings show that the association between marriage and positive child outcomes may be substantially accounted for by greater income and more engaged parenting among marrieds. Based on this, they argue that intervention efforts should focus on parenting and not on marriage, per se.

But Scott Hanley points out that marriage is more than a “mere commitment device” or a superfluous relationship status:

Signals of commitment are important across a wide swath of societal life because people will often make better decisions with clearer information about the level of motivation in others,iii and signals about commitment are, arguably, of great importance in the development and maintenance of romantic and family relationships. Reeves seems to be arguing that the signal value of marriage is not as consequential as behaviors such as parenting, but what that view fails to account for is how marriage has most typically been a potent signal of commitment with a distinct placement regarding the sequence and timing of childbearing. At the root of it, what is signaled by marriage is a commitment comprised of “us with a future.”v Sure, reality has very often been messier than the tidy ordering of love, marriage, and a baby carriage; and many marriages do not go the distance. But marriage is likely, in some large respect, explanatory regarding child outcomes because marriage most often is a strong and credible signal of commitment prior to childbirth.

[. . .]

While not always, and perhaps less so now than before, marriage serves as a strong signal that two people are tacitly committed to raising a family together. Further, and for more complex reasons than I want to develop here, signals are the most informative when they are fully under the control of those sending them—by which I mean, when the behavior has Family at Coffee Shopfewer prior constraints so that it reflects something true about the individual. That means that signals about commitment are more informative before a child arrives than after because having a child increases life constraints. When marriage precedes two people having a child, the question of intention about a shared long-term time horizon was settled before things got messy with baby drool and poop. For couples with this foundation already in place, even unplanned and mistimed children are still landing in a relatively rich context regarding bi-parental commitment. One can (and should) believe that various socio-economic disadvantages govern a lot in this big lottery of life, but we should not lose sight of how sequence plays a consequential and causal role in child outcomes.

Families are the foundation of society, and the devaluing of marriage has consequences that reach every male, female, and child, as well as future generations. Without marriage, “family” becomes a simple collection of cohabitants, and couples are no longer the building blocks that create and sustain those families, but simply a joint agreement.

Marriage is, indeed, fading in front of our eyes, and with it goes a lot of signal clarity about commitment in the context of sequence. Maybe those elements can be constructed behaviorally on a broad scale, but we should recognize the difficulty we face in trying to make up for the loss of something with real explanatory power.

For a strong future, children should be provided with the best environment possible: a family, with committed, married mother and father.

Read more at family-studies.org.

We DO Need Fathers

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, pop icon Katy Perry remarked about fatherhood, “I don't need a dude.  It's 2014!  We are living in the future; we don't need anything.  I’m not anti-men. I love men. But there is an option if someone doesn’t present himself.”

D.C. McAllister responded at The Federalist with a very fine article:

Father-DaughterSociologist David Popenoe, a pioneer in the field of research into fatherhood, says, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home. Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”

That means it’s not just the fact that he provides money so there is reduced stress in the home, and it doesn’t mean just any “dude” can step in and replace him. There is a real and organic relationship between a father and a child that is irreplaceable and essential in the development of the child.

Williams wrote in an article at the Wall Street Journal that “when fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like ‘throwaway people.’ In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them.”

Study after study has shown that children with fathers in the home are better off in school, commit less crime, have more stable relationships, and are less likely to be involved with drugs or engage in other deviant behavior. Girls, in particular, exhibit higher self-esteem and are less likely to have out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

[...]

Studies have shown that fatherless children are more insecure, more likely to experience depression, and more inclined to exhibit disruptive behavior. “Boys with involved fathers have fewer school behavior problems,” and “girls have stronger self-esteem.” In other words, “fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of children.”

[...]

A dad isn’t just some dude to dismiss. Children need him. They will always need him; from infancy to adulthood, he is the cornerstone of their lives... if the statistics are to be believed, then the truth is that growing up without a dad is no fairytale.

Read the whole piece.

"The Implications of Redefining Marriage are Staggering..."

The consequences of redefining marriage are formidable and grave, Michael Brown recently wrote at Charisma News.  Brown pointed out some of the absurdities of California's new law deleting the "biased" and "outdated" terms "husband" and "wife" from the state's marriage law.  The terms have been replaced with "spouse."

Women cannot be fathers and men cannot be mothers, Brown wrote.  He argued that marriage cannot be redefined unless words that are foundational to our existence are rendered meaningless:

Allow me to make some very simple statements...

Note to California: A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

California-FamilyFurther note to California: The terms "husband and wife" are neither discriminatory nor outdated.

Further, further note to California: Your social experiment will fail.

I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who love each other deeply and who are committed to each other long-term, and I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who are absolutely devoted to their children.

I am simply pointing out that their union cannot rightly be called "marriage" (regardless of what the courts might say) without rendering foundational words and concepts meaningless, a sure recipe for cultural chaos.

To repeat: The implications of redefining marriage are staggering, and those of us who love and cherish marriage and family need to redouble our efforts and renew our courage to stand up for what is right and what is best, making a fresh determination to swim against the current flood tide of semantic and social confusion.

True marriage and family will prevail in the end.

The "cultural chaos" to which Brown referred is what has brought about intolerance and bigotry toward those who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.

When It Comes to Parents, It Isn't "The More The Merrier"

Blogging for the Ruth Institute, Jennifer Johnson recounted her experience of growing up with five parents.  The piece responds to claims by Masha Gessen, a prominent LGBT activist who was recently honored by the state department, who has famously celebrated her own unorthodox family as the shape of things to come:

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Johnson's mother and father divorced when she was about three.  Her mother remarried once and her dad remarried twice, so she has experienced what life is like with five parents--a mother, a father, two stepmothers and a step-father.  Johnson's experience shows that growing up in such a structure is not as rosy of a picture as LGBT activists paint or something to be approached casually:

Child Custody

In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child...adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates... Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask [activists]: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

Johnson's experience shows such structures have a profoundly negative impact on children--putting the desires of adults over the needs of children does a giant disservice to the young, vulnerable children involved.

Advocates of redefining marriage can push junk science through the liberal media and claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but when push comes to shove, science and common sense demonstrate otherwise.  Children like Johnson who were raised in unstable environments rarely wish the same on anyone else.

Is it just and fair for adults to put the well-being of children on the backburner so that adult desires can trump everything else?

Johnson also asked readers:

Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them.

Johnson's experiences say a lot about redefining marriage: it hurts children and even advocates of redefining marriage are glad that they benefitted from being raised by both a mother and a father.

Gessen has also advocated for the abolition of marriage altogether, saying:

...it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

Ideal Home for a Child is With His or Her Mother and Father

A photo of two men holding a newborn baby is making its rounds on the internet.  The baby boy was born to an unrelated surrogate mother during Toronto's WorldPride week.  The photo has generated many reactions and garnered the support and praise of many who are supportive of redefining marriage.

Everyone can agree that a defenseless, precious baby deserves love from all of the people in his life.  But many who viewed this photo--or have read stories about same-sex couples adopting, or are curious about what effect the redefinition of marriage has on children--have likely wondered what family structure best benefits children.

Social scientist Mark Regnerus's acclaimed Family Structures Study examined a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.  Those who viewed this viral photo would perhaps be interested in and benefit from reading Regnerus's findings.

Regnerus's extensive study revealed that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."

Family

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18," and although it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to be good, effective parents, the data suggest "that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number."

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often.

The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents.  Regnerus's study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.

Nobody is saying that gays and lesbians don’t love their children and don’t work hard to be good parents. The point that needs to be understood is that this is not about what adults want for themselves, it’s about what is best for children. Adoption exists to serve the needs of children, not the desires of adults.  Adoption places children with the parents they need, not adults with the children they want. The rights at stake here belong to the children – their right to expect to receive the love of their mother and father.

ICYMI: Oregon Catholic Conference Blasts Ruling to Redefine Marriage

The Oregon Catholic Conference, which represents the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker on issues of public policy, expressed their strong disapproval of Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage:

Gavel in MotionThe Oregon Catholic Conference is deeply grieved by Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage. It is a travesty of justice that marriage, as the foundation of society, received no defense in the U.S. District Court. Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, in an extreme dereliction of her sworn duty to uphold the law, refused to represent the interests and the people of Oregon. It is a sad day for democracy when one federally appointed judge can overturn, without any representation, the express will of the people of Oregon.

Despite the judge's ruling, authentic marriage remains what it has always and only been according to God's design: the loving union between one man and one woman for the mutual benefit of the two who have become one flesh and any children born of their union. Redefining marriage confuses the true purpose and meaning of marriage. An act deliberately ensuring that more children will grow up motherless or fatherless is not an act of love. The Oregon Catholic Conference will continue to uphold the true meaning of marriage and advocate for genuine marriages and families in Oregon, and it urges all people of good will to continue to reject the flawed notion that a pairing of two people of the same gender constitutes a marriage.

National Organization for Marriage Expresses Gratitude for World Vision’s Reaffirmation of the Sanctity of Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 26, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Today's reversal is cause for celebration and congratulation. World Vision has listened to their supporters and congregations worldwide and chosen to stand by the Christian truth of marriage in spite of what must be immense pressure from the radical same-sex 'marriage' lobby." — Brian Brown, NOM President —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage today expressed gratitude to World Vision's Leadership and Board for reaffirming the sanctity of marriage and the pivotal importance of marriage to Christian tradition and life.

"The Christian view of marriage clearly holds that it is the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM President. "It was for this reason that many were dismayed earlier this week by the news that World Vision was compromising its stance upon this Biblical value by a new policy that would recognize the validity of 'marriage' between same-sex persons. Today's reversal is cause for celebration and congratulation. World Vision has listened to their supporters and congregations worldwide and chosen to stand by the Christian truth of marriage in spite of what must be immense pressure from the radical same-sex 'marriage' lobby."

World Vision's website explains that the organization will "bear witness to the redemption offered only through faith in Jesus Christ. The staff we engage are equipped by belief and practice to bear this witness. We will maintain our identity as Christian while being sensitive to the diverse contexts in which we express that identity." Brown identified this as the crux of the tension that erupted earlier in the week.

"World Vision expects those it engages as staff to live by the Christian principles and teachings to which the organization was founded to bear witness," Brown explained. "This is why so many people were upset by the organization's proposal to begin hiring staff who had participated in same-sex 'marriages.' The truth of the Christian message is that love for all and respect for God's will in marriage are not exclusive propositions: they can, indeed they must, coincide. True love for all of God's children means recognizing and holding sacred God's plan for the human family."

The National Organization for Marriage is joining with Christian Union and The Manhattan Declaration in encouraging their supporters to visit http://www.facebook.com/WorldVisionStandingforMarriage and express appreciation for the Board's decision.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Utah's Court Filing on Marriage "All About Kids"

In The Salt Lake Tribune, Brooke Adams does a fairly good job presenting the essential arguments in the State of Utah's court filing in support of the marriage amendment which is under legal scrutiny by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The headline of the article is its weakest point, declaring "State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage." 

Baby_Wedding_RingsWe would say, rather, two things: (1) the State is recognizing that marriage is all about the kids, simply observing marriage as a given phenomenon and institution, preexisting any state -- whereas, on the other hand, it is the marriage redefinition side of the debate that seeks to "make" marriage about something which it is not; and (2) the brief should not therefore be said to be "against same-sex marriage," but instead to be for marriage --  marriage as it has come down to us through history and tradition.

Nevertheless, as we said at the outset, the article does do a rather fair job outlining the most salient points of the State's brief:

Utah has chosen a definition of marriage that is "principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults," the state said. "And by reinforcing that understanding, the state gently encourages parents to routinely sacrifice their own interests to the legitimate needs and interests of their children."

That definition is not designed to demean other family structures "any more than giving an ‘A’ to some students demeans others," the state said.

You should read the entire article, which has ample additional quotations from the filing.

What Makes a Parent? A Kansas Court Case Reveals How Far We've Fallen from the Ideal Answer

A terribly sad and maddening story out of Kansas today reveals just how absurdly astray the fruits of the sexual revolution have taken us with respect to understanding the nature of marriage and family.

The story involves a man named William Marotta, and reads like a script of a satire but is all too sadly real.

Here is the basic timeline of the situation, according to the coverage from CNN:

  • In 2009, a lesbian couple from Topeka, Kansas posted an ad on Craiglist(!) seeking a sperm donor.
  • Marotta (who is married!) responded and "donated [his] genetic material" to the women free of charge.
  • The couple then performed an artificial insemination procedure at home(!) and one of the women conceived and gave birth to a baby girl.
  • Now - with the child only 4 years old - the couple have separated and one of the women has had to quit work citing medical reasons.
  • The state, therefore, is stepping in and ordering Marotta to pay child support for the four-year old girl.
  • Marotta is protesting this order in court, saying of the little girl, "I'm not her parent."

Young GirlReading the story, it is particularly horrifying that the child's interests and roles aren't given primary attention, or really any attention at all. Her rights, her needs, her future are all merely the "frame" of the story, relegated to being treated as nothing more than a source of inconvenience in the lives of these three adults.

The relevance of this story to the issue of same-sex 'marriage' is obvious: The drive to redefine marriage is born of a culture which makes marriage and parenting about the desires of adults rather than the rights and welfare of children. This story gives a snapshot of that culture.

For these three adults, having a child wasn't the serious and heavily weighed decision of commitment that it should be. Marotta himself says he responded to the Craigslist ad  (and let's pause momentarily again over that detail) because he was "intrigued" - fathering a daughter was a lark for him. And as for the couple who so quickly separated... one can only wonder whether they were truly prepared for the gravity of parenthood, when part of the process involved soliciting sperm from a random stranger met on the internet!

This is why marriage matters: Marriage encapsulates a set of norms and expectations which civilize men, protect women, and serve the needs of children. Abandon these norms, and "parenting" becomes a soap-opera story about adults' goals and achievements, where children are merely part of the supporting cast.

Pro-Marriage Rally Planned at Utah State Capitol

Check it out!

Stand for Marriage Flyer


Click here to read a news piece on the planned rally.

If you live in Utah, I hope to see you there! If not, please share this with your pro-marriage family and friends in Utah so that we can have a strong showing and demonstrate in a resounding way that Utah stands for marriage!