"...a traditional marriage movement whose leaders represent a new generation has entered the game, and it is gaining steam.

"The other side has been preparing the seeds for this debate for 20 or 30 years and they've been well-prepared, well-organized and the response is just in its infancy," Ryan Anderson, with the Heritage Foundation, told CBN News.

... The New York Times recently recognized Anderson and other movement leaders like Caitlin Seery, who directs the Love and Fidelity Network on college campuses.

"We are trying to help students prepare themselves for healthy marriages so they will then raise healthy families because healthy families are the foundation of our society," Seery told CBN News.

What Seery, Anderson, and other supporters of traditional marriage have in common is a willingness to face fierce opposition and think outside the box about what is possible."

"In recent essays here at Public Discourse, Mark Regnerus argued that same-sex marriage would harm marriage for everyone, and John Smoot argued that it would be bad for children in particular. Today I want to show the damage that redefining marriage does to religious freedom. At bottom, even the defense of religious liberty is a struggle over what is true and false about the meaning of marriage.

Should the truth about marriage--that it unites men and women so that children will have fathers and mothers--be defied by the laws of the land, we cannot expect the religious freedom of those who believe in that ancient truth to be respected under the new dominion of falsehood.

After all, if redefining marriage to include same-sex couples accords with justice and moral truth, there is no good reason for the new legal order to make room for "conscientious" religious dissenters, for clearly their consciences are malformed and unworthy of respect. Thus the fate of religious freedom, for scores of millions of Americans, stands or falls with the fate of conjugal marriage itself..."

"...I am the mother of a ten-year-old girl, a beautiful child, more precious to me than anything you can imagine. When, on June 1, same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Minnesota, I needed to know what to tell her. How is this supposed to work—actually—in the concrete world of a ten-year-old child and her mother? Her father is wondering too, of course, but he is rather speechless at the moment. And the way it works in our house, though he is really good at protecting her from possible physical threats, it usually falls to me to protect her from the more psychological threats she encounters occasionally in her young life. But this is a new one. So I need some advice.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that, as a philosopher, I have gotten fairly skilled at treating the philosophical errors of our age in the classroom setting. But a ten-year-old is at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to the arguments I have developed against relativism, nominalism, dualism, materialism, and so on. And then of course, parenting comes with its own specific challenges. So I am hoping those who advocate same-sex marriage have given some thought to this, eager as they seem to be to take on the task of parenting themselves."

"Chauncey is right; we transformed the “Normal.” We created a “new Normal.” The mantra of the revolution, “If it feels good, do it,” ultimately weakened the institution of marriage with its inherent restraints and responsibilities, ballooned the divorce rate, and brought the number of out-of-wedlock births to 40 percent of all children born in America. All of which translates into poverty, crime, and suffering.

Over the course of twenty-one years as a judge in Boston, I granted thousands of divorces and heard thousands of cases involving children of unmarried parents. Yes, there were adults and children who benefited from divorce just as there were children of single parent families who did fine or excelled. Overall, however, the revolution that encouraged “pleasure, freedom, [and] self-expression” brought an immense amount of pain and misery. Was it bad for everyone? No. Was it bad for millions? Yes.

Social policy and cultural change have an impact on all of us. And clearly, the impact is not always for the good. Now, we are transforming marriage by eliminating its inherent gender distinctions."

"...Now then, the supporter of same-sex marriage asks, shall we deny all this [the benefits of marriage] to the thousands of men and women in same-sex relationships?

We shouldn’t, and we don’t. Whether or not these companionate ideals are all equally healthy to seek, all in one bond, and all specifically in marriage, the general desire that animates them — to know and serve one who knows and serves us — is the desire to love. No aim is nobler.

But traditional marriage law denies these companionate ideals to no one. It does not discourage anyone from seeking them. Its more specific view of what makes a marriage can even liberate us for emotional intimacy in other bonds. And even if companionate bonds are impaired if deprived of public status, it does not follow that they require legal status. Remarkably, then, one of the most common and powerfully felt objections to conjugal-marriage policy is also one of the easiest to answer. The law simply has much less to do with this than people commonly suppose. We can unpack this all."

Photo Credit: MA Mouterde

"...The French resistance to same-sex marriage has demonstrated that an ostensibly progressive nation that had little issue with homosexuality as a moral question can change its mind, not based on ignorance of reality, but based on knowing more about what same-sex marriage really means. 

... The drop in support for same-sex marriage came with education and broader public debate. As the French knew more gay people individually and learned more about the ramifications of their legalized marriage on the community at large—especially children and poor communities overseas targeted for adoption and surrogacy—they liked the idea of same-sex marriage less and less.

...France proves that no opinion trend on any graph can be taken for granted as perpetual. In the United States we knew this already; we simply weren’t aware that we knew it. We know from the abortion debate that what seems like a steady march of acceptance can actually grind to a halt or reverse.

The Gallup polls on abortion show how unpredictable the trends in opinion can be, for the number of “pro-choice” Americans peaked in 1996 at 56 percent, then declined to 45 percent today, while pro-life opinion gained significant ground, albeit in fits and starts (only 33 percent of Americans were pro-life in 1996, compared to 48 percent today).

If we take a step back and examine how the international LGBT lobby has fought for same-sex marriage, we see that the lobby’s leaders must be equally aware that nothing is inevitable about acceptance of same-sex marriage, regardless of what they say publicly. Rather than patience, haste has characterized their tactics.

Still, no one can deny that Americans’ support for marriage is not what it once was. This is largely because we have done an insufficient job of explaining what marriage is, why marriage matters, and what the consequences will be if we redefine marriage.

To fill this void, we have worked with our allies at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the National Organization for Marriage to produce an easy to read pamphlet to explain why marriage matters in everyday language. Download a free e-book version today at TheMarriageFacts.com.

Marriage is founded on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that the union of a man and woman also creates new life, and the social reality that children need a mom and a dad.

For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father. Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. It protects children by incentivizing adults to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

All the polls in the world cannot undo the truth about marriage. But they can obscure the truth and make it less likely that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively. This in turn reduces the odds that children will know the love and care of their married mothers and fathers.

Whatever pollsters and pundits may tell us about “inevitability,” the only way to guarantee a political loss is to sit idly by. We should frame our message, strengthen coalitions, devise strategies, and bear witness. (Heritage)

"...Stacey notes this gatekeeping function as well in her ethnography of gay relationships in Los Angeles, quoting early gay activist and journalist Randy Shilts’s remark that among gay men there was “no moderating role like that a woman plays in the heterosexual milieu.” Furthermore, Shilts, author of And the Band Played On, asserted that “so much of the gay community’s sexuality . . . seemed more defined by gender than sexual orientation.”

The Add Health data concur, revealing that the subject of monogamy and its discontents is not limited to gay men. Shilts described how “some heterosexual males privately confided that they were enthralled with the idea of . . . immediate, available, even anonymous sex...if they could only find women who would agree.”

This phenomenon, I suspect, has the unique potential to genuinely shape or affect heterosexual marriage. Why this one? Because it’s the only one of the side effects Mundy notes that is exclusive to men. And why does that matter? Because—as I’ve written elsewhere—men have gained a decided advantage in the wider mating market." (Public Discourse)

Here are some highlights but we urge you to read the whole speech here at First Things!

"...We are here, all so numerous, because our fundamental and universal values unite us.

Photo Credit: MA Mouterde

The truth is that we do not have the same notion of equality as our opponents do. Our belief, held by most of the country, rests first on the equality of children, equality before the right to have a father and mother, that is to say, an origin and real heritage, rather than a false heritage. Based on that we have come together as atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, right, left, straight, gay. For all, the truth that we owe to the child is sacred. We do not want children’s lives to be woven around lies, nor do we want gender studies ideology to triumph.

Then, as our opponents do not understand us, they refuse to debate us, they mock us, and they libel us.

But this time, it is you who are facing the wind, at the failure of the meaning of history. For we do not search for a false sense of History; rather, we shall write it!

All the generations are here, and among them, fathers and mothers and youths, each one keeping watch over us, over all of France, in silence, peaceful.

Yes, we turn now to face the future: yes, we have faith in the future; yes, we build the future and that is why we protest. We want a better world, rather than a brave new world.

What have we discovered along this long road? We are not alone! We are no longer alone, isolated, considered old fuddy duddies, losers, or conservatives—rather, the others will be revealed as those who live outside of reality.

Yes, France has awoken!"

One of the great lines from their article: "There’s no such thing as being on the “right” or “wrong” side of history. There’s only being on the right or wrong side of truth."

Amen!

Here's how their article begins:

Two of the younger conservative voices in the nation explain why marriage needs to be preserved for the next generation—their own.

The media claim we don’t exist. OK, that’s a slight exaggeration. But after all, we’re Millennials, born during the Reagan administration. We’re supposed to be of the generation that is embracing same-sex marriage in droves.

Instead, we’re standing strong on upholding the truth about what marriage is.

We’ve been asked—repeatedly—whether the position we’re promoting is pointless. Are we willing to endure cultural scorn for holding to a position as supposedly outmoded as natural marriage?

Politicos and pundits offer hyperbolic missives on how conservatives are losing young Americans, who are likely to be more libertarian on social issues. The preferred talking point is to assert the demise of the opposition; Same-sex marriage is “inevitable.”

A justly revered conservative columnist, George F. Will, has said twice on ABC’s “This Week” that opposition to same-sex marriage is a dying trait. “Quite literally,” he said, “the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people.”

Tweet to Mr. Will: Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. #NotDeadYet

Read the rest here.

You can download a PDF of the bulletin insert here.

Here are some of the messages it promotes:

Be a witness for the truth of marriage in word and action. Take advantage of opportunities to speak about marriage’s unique meaning in conversation with friends, family, neighbors or co-workers. Share the truth in love.

Everyone has inviolable dignity and deserves love and respect. There are many ways to protect the basic human rights of all, but redefining marriage serves no one’s rights, least of all those of children.

What is marriage? Marriage is the permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman, for the good of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. One man, one woman—for life. (See Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, no. 48).

The difference is the difference. Men and women matter. They are equal but different. Sexual difference is essential to marriage.

Mothers and fathers matter. They aren’t interchangeable. Every child has a basic, natural right to come from and be raised in the loving marital union of his or her own father and mother.

Protecting marriage matters to everyone. It’s Catholic social teaching 101: pro-woman, pro-man, pro-child. Redefining marriage in the law says many false things: women – mothers – are dispensable; men – fathers – are dispensable; what adults want trumps what a child deserves and has a basic right to. (Marriage Unique for a Reason blog)

Same-sex marriage will never be widely accepted in America for a simple reason: It’s based on a lie. But don’t take my word on this; leading LGBT scholars and activists say as much.

Take Masha Gessen, acclaimed author and former Russian director of Radio Liberty. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change,” Gessen said last year.

Last month, I was part of a debate at the NYU School of Law at which Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at the university, declared: “Children certainly do not need both a mother and a father.”

...Same-sex marriage rejects the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

In the end, the truth about marriage will win out. (New York Daily News)

We've reported to you before on lesbian journalist Masha Gessen's outrageous comments at a recent writers' forum in Sydney. The remarks continue to gain exposure by the mainstream media, which is good news for getting the word out about the underlying agenda which accompanies much of the lobbying in favor of marriage redefinition.

Hear Gessen's frank (but honest) statement of a viewpoint more common than most people think among those who purport to favor same-sex marriage:

The Blaze:

Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

• “Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

Two of the more interesting (where “interesting” is a euphemism for “horrifying”) aspects of the debate over gay “marriage” are inexorably intertwined: the decision by the movement’s backers to pretend that there is no strong connection between marriage and children (this is overwhelmingly done by those who do not have children) and a separate but related track to “get government out of marriage,” which is treated as some sort of tactical decision to, er, divorce government from its ability to decide who may marry and when.

The former is overwhelmingly done by libertarians who have taken the curious position that the failure by the state to expand a right is the same as the affirmative denial of that right, and by liberals who do not understand what rights actually are. The latter is a position taken by libertarians who believe the state’s role in marriage reaching back centuries is part of the nanny state, and conservatives who either legitimately want to preserve marriage from the barbarians or who like sounding good to their more left-wing friends.

Yet it is in the confluence of these two fantasies that the lie of both is exposed. I think it is helpful, as we embark on destroying yet another social institution and just assuming something else will pop up in its place, to understand what we are doing and what its likeliest consequences are.

These consequences, of course, somehow involve children.

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.

... The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

In a column at CNN.com, Marc Stern asks whether “gay rights” will infringe religious liberty. By “gay rights” he means eradication of sexual complementarity from marriage laws.

His answer is yes, sometimes: “In some instances the rights of same-sex couples will unavoidably trump religious liberty rights.” Why? If the Supreme Court redefines marriage by judicial fiat, religious observers will be forced to choose between obedience to conscience and full participation in public life, because the definition of marriage applies to everyone, including those who perceive inherent differences between men and women.

The evidence is now too extensive to ignore that one effect of redefining marriage is to force everyone to embrace a conception of marriage as a genderless institution, grounded in norms of companionship and personal fulfillment, rather than complementarity, fidelity, and permanence. Even half measures, such as civil unions, leave few domains for religious liberty. When the law abandons the traditional conception of marriage and sexuality in favor of the companionate conception, citizens must deny sexual complementarity, even in contravention of their core religious convictions, in order to participate fully in public life.

"...the conservative view [of what would happen if we redefine marriage] has actually had decent predictive power. As the cause of gay marriage has pressed forward, the social link between marriage and childbearing has indeed weakened faster than before. As the public’s shift on the issue has accelerated, so has marriage’s overall decline.

Since Frum warned that gay marriage could advance only at traditional wedlock’s expense, the marriage rate has been falling faster, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has been rising faster, and the substitution of cohabitation for marriage has markedly increased. Underlying these trends is a steady shift in values: Americans are less likely to see children as important to marriage and less likely to see marriage as important to childbearing (the generation gap on gay marriage shows up on unwed parenting as well) than even in the very recent past."

... But there is also a certain willed naïveté to the idea that the advance of gay marriage is unrelated to any other marital trend. For 10 years, America’s only major public debate about marriage and family has featured one side — judges and journalists, celebrities and now finally politicians — pressing the case that modern marriage has nothing to do with the way human beings reproduce themselves, that the procreative understanding of the institution was founded entirely on prejudice, and that the shift away from a male-female marital ideal is analogous to the end of segregation.

Gay marriage opponents say they're protecting women and children first.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about same-sex marriage next week, much of the debate will turn on legal questions surrounding issues such as federalism and due process.

But the underlying questions are more emotional, with moral objections frequently raised by members of the faith community.

"I believe marriage will be between a man and a woman," says Ruben Diaz, a minister in the Church of God and a Democratic state senator from New York who plans to demonstrate outside the court next week. "It's as simple as that."

But there are secular arguments against gay marriage, as well. Its opponents believe that redefining marriage to allow two men or two women to wed each other will weaken an institution set up across centuries and societies to protect women when they are pregnant and ensure that children's fathers take responsibility for them.

"If the law redefines marriage to say that fathers are optional, then it's hard to make the argument that fathers are essential," says Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

...Allowing gay couples to marry, he says, weakens the power of marriage as a coercive force for procreating couples. And gays can secure the rights they need, such as hospital visitations and inheritance issues, through other changes in the law, Anderson says.

"Marriage doesn't have to do all of the work we need to do to do good public policy," he adds.

Surveys suggest that kids younger than 18 in same-sex families still number fewer than a quarter-million.

"It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent," says Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group opposing same-sex marriage.

"The difference is that children raised by gay parents are very much in the media's eye," he says. "We see it on Modern Family. We see this hugely blown out of proportion. It's why, by the way, in Gallup [polls], Americans believe that a third to a fourth of Americans are gay."

In fact, studies estimate that it's more like 3 percent to 4 percent. And Peters argues that the media image of gay marriage's impact is misleading. [...]

...Still, children are making their own heartfelt case.

Eleven-year-old Grace Evans, with her long hair in a braid, testified this month as Minnesota lawmakers considered legalizing same-sex marriage.

"I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need — my mom or my dad?" she said. She looked up from her paper to a long silence.

And a teen who testified against gay marriage in Maryland last year received online death threats. But Peters says kids are central to this debate.

"As long as the marriage conversation remains focused on, generationally, what's best for children, I think America will find the right way forward," he says.

In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.

The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.

Grace (age 11) testified in the House Civil Law hearing today. She asked the Committee: "Which parent don't I need, my mom or my dad?"

The committee had no answer for her.

===

Doug (gay man): "marriage isn't about love, commitment and responsibility--it's about kids. Ignore the media push and adult demands for same-sex marriage."

"It's not homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage!"

"MN legislators, passing this bill says your wife or husband is not important in the raising of your children!"

===

Prof. Robert Lopez (humanities scholar, bisexual man):

"Couples deserve to have love recognized, but I know as a child raised by my lesbian mother and her partner that there is something missing when a child is raised by 2 same-sex parents."

"We've heard a lot from same-sex marriage activists who feel they’ve earned property rights to children, but we haven’t heard enough from children’s rights advocates in a full debate."

"...a look at SF925 reveals that something much more insidious than advocates let on is underway. This bill would strip the words “mother” and “father” of meaning under Minnesota law. Henceforth, the bill states, these words — among the most beloved and culturally freighted in the English language — “must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.”

Of course, “mother” and “father” aren’t “gender-neutral” words. That’s a fiction. All Minnesotans have a mother and a father — female and male, respectively. Our state’s legislators may view themselves as powerful, but they can’t repeal this fact of human biology. Yet same-sex marriage advocates must pretend this is possible, if they are to convince the rest of us that a “union” of two people of the same sex is identical to that of a man and woman whose sexual complementarity is the only thing that produces the next generation.

This stripping of meaning from “mother” and “father” is just one signal of the tectonic shift our society will undergo if we try to redefine marriage in a way that portrays the anatomical, social and psychological differences between men and women as irrelevant to human life — just as shoe size and eye color are. We urgently need a conversation at the State Capitol that grapples seriously with the unknown implications of such a step — as they unfold next year and 50 years from now.

Legislators should begin by considering why marriage has been a male/female institution throughout recorded history. Is it really because people in the past weren’t as smart as we are, or were “bigots?” Of course not. It’s because marriage has a vital public purpose: It binds fathers to mothers and the children their sexual union creates. This bond is crucial to children’s well-being — and to society’s future."

If you have not yet contacted your representative and senator, please do so today!

Many of us will recall the song from Sesame Street that begins, “One of these things is not like the other.” The song conveyed to viewers that not everything, or every relationship, is the same; we have different capabilities and purposes.

The government routinely sings this song as it recognizes and seeks to support certain relationships based on their uniqueness, their distinctive purpose, or their benefit to society.

One such relationship that is unlike any other is marriage.

Marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman—a relationship recognized throughout human history and by diverse cultures and faiths. Marriage distinguishes itself from any other because it unites the distinct and uniquely wonderful differences of men and women to bring forth and nurture society’s next generation.

While many relationships exist, the union of a man and a woman is unlike any other as no other relationship joins its participants as one united whole to create a new person. No other relationship is similarly situated in this special way.

Everyone has blind spots. It is philosophy’s ambition to cure these by canceling them out, through dialogue and scrutiny of assumptions. But even academic philosophy has its dogmas. One current example is support for same-sex marriage: To question it is to be anathematized by those occupationally averse to anathemas.

So I was both pleased that Alex Worsnip reviewed my co-authored book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and unsurprised that he misunderstood it. My former classmate in Oxford’s philosophy master’s (B.Phil.) program, Worsnip is sharp and serious about arguments, and consistently blind to arguments of certain sorts.

"...By way of illustration, let me return to the natatorium. Water polo is a sport in which seven players swim around in a deep pool, cooperating in an effort to beat the opposing team while abiding by the rules of the game. A water polo team, then, is simply a group of people who play this sport with one another, who band together to win water polo games against other teams. Thus playing water polo is the characteristic activity of a water polo team, meaning not only that it reveals or witnesses to what this team is, but also that it actually makes this team what it is. It is in virtue of their playing water polo that a group of people is a water polo team at all.

Given that, it is obviously insufficient for forming a water polo team that a group of seven people just swim laps around the pool during what would otherwise be a water polo game. To qualify as this particular type of association, the seven must actually do the thing that makes them this type of association. To be a water polo team, the group must play water polo. This also means that, were the seven for some reason incapable of doing the activity characteristic of such team-ship, they could not be a water polo team. Seven people who cannot swim cannot form a team.

What does any of this have to do with marriage? As with water polo, to get at what marriage is, we should ask what the characteristic activity of marriage is. As nearly every society in history has recognized, marriage’s characteristic action is sexual intercourse. Thus coitus is classically termed the “marital act”, and it has traditionally been said to “consummate” the marriage, in a way that no other act—sexual or otherwise—can." (First Things)

On love and its relation to marriage, Peters says in response to Peter Tatchell:

"The proponent of gay marriage keeps saying "love is love is love" but the fact is there's a difference between the love of two men, and the love of a man and a woman the difference being that the love of a man and a woman, in most cases, ends with a child, and the child needs a mother and a father, a child for its entire biological [upbringing] will need to be raised by will be raised best by its mother and father and so that's why it's absurd to claim there's something ethically wrong with with seeing the love between a man and a woman as being unique -- that's what the core of marriage is, it's not an evaluation of one love versus another, it's saying different loves result in different things, and that's why the vast majority of who will experience love heterosexually and will have a child and that child will need a mother and father and all the social sciences show that children to best when they're raised by their biological mother and father. And so marriage just isn't about the emotional needs of adults, it's about the practical, emotional, psychological, social needs of children and that's why, while you can experiment with marriage for a few years, generationally only a healthy society that understands this core meaning of what love actually means, is a successful society."

On the harm gay marriage causes, Peters provides an illustration:

"There's an awful lot of civil society -- churches, communities, government -- that is all built to support marriage because marriage isn't easy. It's not easy to get men and women to commit to raising the children they make with their bodies. But that's what civil society has been doing and a healthy society does that. It is difficult and gay marriage makes it difficult for all of civil society to enshrine that value that children deserve a mom and a dad, and that men and women should stick around and love and raise the children they make with their bodies, and the detraction of gay marriage has made it impossible for things like the Catholic Church, for things like political/civil government to give that message and so when you say "gay marriage won't hurt anyone" it already has because now when I try to say "a child deserves both mom and a dad" you jump in and say "that's against equality!" and so you can actually see already that the more gay marriage becomes accepted and enshrined in law the more difficult it will become for the rest of us to communicate this life saving propagating message for the next generation."

In our new book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, we make a rational case for the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal relationship — a union of a man and a woman at every level (mind, heart, andbody), inherently oriented to family life. We show how the common good depends on enshrining this view in law, and answer all the most significant criticisms of this view (having to do with equality, freedom, neutrality, interracial marriage, infertile couples, and much more). We show how the argument for redefining marriage contradicts itself, and document the many ways that embracing it would harm the common good. And we show how society can support marriage without ignoring the needs, undermining the dignity, or curbing the fulfillment of people with same-sex attractions.

Here, we respond to some challenges that even those sympathetic to our views might raise: Why worry about same-sex marriage in particular? Why worry about marriage policy? If marriage policy does matter, why not “broaden the definition” of marriage to promote family values? How would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages harm marriage? Isn’t ours a losing cause, or at best a secondary one? And why privilege anyone’s sectarian values at all — doesn’t that compromise freedom and equality? We address each of these questions in turn.

http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/01/what-is-marriage

They make the case for marriage in about 30 minutes and then offer 25 minutes of Q&A.

This is must-watch for those want to become better at articulating the positive case for marriage!

"...As David Mills notes below, Wendell Berry has recently claimed that opponents of same-sex marriage are necessarily and categorically rejecting a whole class of people. He tells us this kind of “categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob” and as such is the worst kind of hate.

"...Throughout history, just states (whether democratic or not) have understood that there are limits to their powers: There are certain things that just states simply cannot do.

With rare exceptions, the just state cannot interfere in the doctor-patient relationship or the lawyer-client relationship; it can never interfere in the priest-penitent relationship; it ought to be extremely chary of interfering in the parent-child relationship (save in obvious cases like abuse); and there are limits (always subject to debate and adjustment) about the state’s reach into the employer-employee relationship. The just state acknowledges the integrity of these primary, fundamental, civil society relationships and protects them legally. It has no business reinventing or redefining those relationships, for the just state exists to serve civil society, not vice versa.

Marriage is the primordial civil society relationship, for it is the basis of the family, which is the primordial civil society institution. That is why, for millennia, states have protected marriage, understood as what it is: the stable union of a man and a woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children. When a state claims the right to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, it is tacitly claiming the right to redefine the number of persons who may make a marriage (why stop at two?); it is also tacitly claiming the right to redefine, by governmental fiat, every other pre-existing free association of civil society.

That claim is antithetical to the freedom of individuals, families, and society."  (First Things)

In his new article on the subject, he explains why arguments for equality and against discrimination don't apply to same-sex partners:

"...For almost two centuries, equality before the law had been denied to Americans of African descent; that blatant injustice was challenged by a movement of moral persuasion and legal maneuver; the movement was ultimately vindicated by a change of hearts, minds, and statutes. If then, on matters of race, why not now, on the question of who can marry? That’s the argument; it has considerable emotive power. 

But it’s wrong.

In their recent book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books), three Catholic thinkers with Princeton connections—Robert P. George (who holds Woodrow Wilson’s old chair at that eminent university) and two of his former students, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson—argue persuasively, and on grounds of reason, that America can’t arrive at a serious answer to this question—Should government redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships?—by appealing to equality.

Why not? Because every marriage policy in every polity known to history draws boundaries, excluding some types of relationships from marriage. Parents can’t marry their children. Brothers and sisters can’t marry. People beneath a certain age can’t marry. People who are already married can’t marry.

In other words, governments, whether autocratic, aristocratic, monarchical, or democratic, have always “discriminated”—i.e., made distinctions—in their marriage laws. And in that sense, there is no “equality” issue in marriage law similar to the equality that racial minorities rightly sought, and won, in the civil rights movement."

Also check out Vogt's website.

For more information on the event click here.

"...In the thick of the struggle over the law and politics of marriage, we can easily forget how novel is the idea of two men or two women marrying each other.

This fact came home to me when I participated in a forum on the subject at Princeton University last spring. Present in the room were two lions of the liberal academy, each past the “threescore years and ten” of which the Psalmist speaks, each a distinguished scholar with many publications to his credit, each known for his devotion to liberal causes. Both gentlemen expressed the opinion that the cause of same-sex marriage was obviously just, that opponents of the cause were obviously reactionary and benighted, and that this was plainly the new civil rights struggle of our time.''

Yet it struck me that if denying same-sex couples the “right to marry” was such an obvious and gross injustice as to merit such energetic claims today, why had it never occurred to either of these august scholars decades ago, at the beginning or the middle of their careers? In the books of proud advocacy each had published, say, twenty or thirty years ago, there was not the slightest hint that American public life was disfigured by this particular injustice.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships simply didn’t occur to them, because it didn’t occur to anyone. Yet that day they espoused that view with the fervor of men who had always thought so, and for whom it was unthinkable to believe otherwise. If they reflected on this change in their own thinking, would they conclude that their reasoning powers had been deficient years ago, or their moral sympathies inadequate?" -- Public Discourse

What Is Marriage?
Man and Woman: A Defense

Featuring authors--

Sherif Girgis
Ph.D. Student, Princeton University and J.D. Candidate, Yale Law School

Ryan T. Anderson
William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, The Heritage Foundation

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Until recently, no society had questioned whether marriage would be anything other than a male-female union. What Is Marriage? identifies and defends the reasons for this historic consensus and shows why redefining civil marriage is unnecessary, unreasonable, and contrary to the common good. What Is Marriage? answers common objections: that the historic view of marriage is rooted in bigotry; that it is callous to people’s needs; or that it can’t show the harm of recognizing same-sex couplings.

Originally published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the book’s core argument quickly became the year’s most widely read essay on the most prominent scholarly network in the social sciences. Since then, it has been cited and debated by scholars and activists throughout the world as the most formidable defense of the tradition ever written. Join us as authors Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George discuss what marriage is, why it matters, and how to talk about it.

You can order the book here.

If we ask ourselves how it is that the advocacy of gay marriage has become an orthodoxy to which all our political leaders subscribe, we must surely acknowledge that intimidation has some part to play in the matter. Express the slightest hesitation on this score and someone will accuse you of “homophobia”, while others will organise to ensure that, even if nothing else is known about your views, this at least will be notorious. Only someone with nothing to lose can venture to discuss the issue with the measure of circumspection that it invites, and politicians do not figure among the class of people with nothing to lose.

Yet it is unlikely that the ordinary conscience will find itself entirely at ease with a change that overthrows social norms on which people have depended throughout recorded history. In this, as in so many things, people of conservative temperament look around for the person who will speak for them and find only an embarrassed silence. Strident minorities, acting on the growing disposition to censor their opponents, ensure that the deeper the question, the more likely it is to be settled by shallow arguments.

"...The most interesting—and revealing—comments on this week’s posts have been those that said marriage is simply whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults—be they two or 10 in number—want it to be; sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent.

That idea sounds like the abolition of marriage. Marriage is left with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality—it is simply whatever consenting adults want it to be.

If so, how can redefining marriage for public purposes to include same-sex relationships be a demand of justice? A matter of basic fairness and equality? From the wide variety of interpersonal consensual relationships that adults can form, why should the state pick out same-sex ones?

Indeed, some of those who posted comments saw this logic, and thinking that marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, they concluded that the government should get out of the marriage business.

If so, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive?"

Yesterday’s post explained government’s policy interest in marriage. Government needs to get marriage policy right, because it shapes the norms associated with this most fundamental relationship.

Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that optional would also make other essential characteristics—like monogamy, exclusivity and permanency—optional, as my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. We also show how it is increasingly confirmed by the rhetoric and arguments of those who would redefine marriage (“revisionists”) and by the policies that their more candid leaders increasingly embrace. Indeed, several commentators on Tuesday’s post explicitly jettisoned monogamy, sexual exclusivity and pledged permanence as demands of marriage.

"...Properly framed, the question raised by the Supreme Court's upcoming constitutional review of California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act is whether states and the federal government can legally define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman?

The answer is, clearly, yes.

The United States Constitution says nothing about marriage. The issue of what relationships government recognizes as marriage is a political question, not a constitutional one. States have always been able determine who may legally marry in their states. There are many limitations in the right to marry, including those concerning consanguinity. First cousins are prohibited from marrying in most states, but permitted in others. Some states recognize as valid cousin marriages performed elsewhere, but other states deny them legal recognition. If states have the power to limit marriage to relationships that are not too closely related by blood, surely they have the right to codify the intrinsic male/female nature of marriage.

Similarly, the federal government has the right to define marriage as one man and one woman. Since the purpose of publicly recognizing marriage is to encourage men and women to form stable families to bear and raise children, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to provide benefits and incentives to encourage such family formation. Indeed, encouraging marriage was so important that the federal government even conditioned statehood for Utah on them prohibiting polygamy and adopting laws in line with traditional norms of marriage.

Please share it among your friends!

"...Getting government out of the civil marriage business would be a catastrophe for limited government. Abolishing civil marriage would weaken social support for its norms. Over time, the law shapes what people think marriage is—which in turn affects how current and future spouses act.  As countless studies show, absentee fathers and out-of-wedlock births bring a train of social pathologies, and greater demand for policing and social services. This was, after all, what inspired the original “marriage movement,” as my first post explained. 

A study by the Left-leaning Brookings Institution finds that $229 billion in welfare spending between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year. And Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state and federal government $33 billion each year.

Civil marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture.

Of course, it isn’t just the legal title of marriage that encourages adherence to marital norms. There is nothing magical about the word “marriage.” Instead, marriage laws work by embodying and promoting a true vision of what marriage is that makes sense of those norms as a coherent whole."

"...The Supreme Court should reverse these lower-court rulings, and straightforwardly affirm the right of the people in any state to act, constitutionally or legislatively, to adopt the traditional view of marriage as a relationship oriented toward procreation. The justices need not themselves hold that view — they may consider it outmoded or rationally inferior to a conception of marriage that treats it first and foremost as an emotional union of adults — to see that the Constitution erects no barrier to it, and that states therefore have the freedom to act on it. 

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards. Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority? One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties. Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children? The question answers itself.

Are laws protecting this time-honored institution founded upon a culpable animus against persons of homosexual inclination? Such a conclusion would rest on three errors. First, it would confuse the law’s purpose with the putative motives of some who support it. Second, it would accuse some citizens — citizens holding moral opinions about behavior that the Constitution plainly permits them to act upon — of a personal animosity of which they are not guilty. Finally, it would be blind to the plain fact that in a society that is increasingly open and tolerant regarding homosexuality, many Americans find it easy to join in such welcoming attitudes while believing quite sensibly that governmental recognition of same-sex couples as married is incompatible with the purpose for which marriage policy exists in the first place: to foster stability in the sort of relationships that can give rise to children."

"...Just ask yourself: If the law recognized same-sex couples as spouses, would it still fail to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly when their consensual romantic bonds go unrecognized, their children thereby “stigmatized,” their tax filings unprivileged? 

This isn’t scaremongering. In 2009, Newsweek reported that there were over 500,000 polyamorous households in America. And prominent scholars and LGBT activists have called for “marriage equality” for multipartner relationships since at least 2006.

And in any case, the question is more fundamental: Once one jettisons sexual complementarity—the bodies of men and women go together—what principle can one offer to limit civil marriage to monogamous couples? For that is the only way to answer the charge that withholding a “fundamental right” from even just one multiple-partner household isn’t a grave injustice.''

Again, to know when the lines drawn by a marriage law are arbitrary—when they violate equality—we have to know what marriage is and why the state promotes it. Tomorrow’s post will examine that latter question; today we focus on what marriage is."

"As the Ricochet editors mentioned, tomorrow Encounter Books releases my new book, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. So while blogging at Ricochet this week, I thought I’d explore some of the issues raised by the book—and recent events, thanks to the Supreme Court. Today I’d like to situate the debate over the definition of marriage within its proper context. 

Some people wonder why conservatives choose to focus exclusively on same-sex marriage. The answer is simple: We don’t. First, conservatives always did—and still do—make other social and political efforts to strengthen the marriage culture. The push for same-sex marriage was brought to us. Second, now that this is the live debate, we can’t ignore it, for its outcome will have wider effects on the marriage culture that really is our main concern.

Long before there was a debate about same-sex marriage, there was a debate about marriage. It launched a “marriage movement,” to explain why marriage was good for the men and women who were faithful to its demands, and for the children they reared."

"... [marriage] is a human good. Its goodness stands upon, and flows out of, what we are as human beings. It is good to unite with another person in a comprehensive union. It is good for that union to be of the sort that uniquely completes the one biological function that depends on two persons, male and female. It is good for that union to be of the sort that can and usually does result in offspring, the effusive fruit of the couple’s love. It is good for those children to be raised by their biological parents. It is good for individuals, for couples, for children, for society as a whole, which by the way is the only reason it makes sense for government to be involved in marriage. It is not good to practice or propose any view of marriage that would undermine these goods, just because they are real goods.

They are good because of who we are as humans. And it is our humanity, not any three authors’ opinions, or any religious or conservative political group’s viewpoint, that is the immovable object against which the (seemingly) irresistible force of same-sex “marriage” is pressing itself. There is, after all, an answer to the question, “what is marriage?” In its core (not its accidents but its substance), that answer has been the same the world over in virtually all cultures: a fact which is easily understood in virtue of humans being humans in all cultures the world over."

"...Same-sex marriage is built on a foundation of question-begging and caricature. It’s stunning how much the advocates of SSM beg the question of whether opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are similarly situated with respect to marriage–their talk of “marriage equality,” in this sense, is simple-minded propaganda. It’s also impressive how they think they can ignore a nuanced understanding of the connection between marriage and procreation, preferring inaccurate and even ridiculous caricatures of this all-important connection. 

To give an example, procreation is not the sine qua non of marriage, as the author of what Richard Posner has described as “the best book on same-sex marriage” calls it. If even the most sophisticated supporters of SSM are prone to such inaccuracies, what are we supposed to think? (Procreation is the raison d’être of marriage–a very different thing from sine qua non. Boiled down, this means the general fact of procreation is the reason for the existence of the institution of marriage–or that the marriage institution minus procreation as a general fact about that institution is meaningless, an empty shrine.)"

William Haun joins in:

"...The logical problem same-sex marriage advocates face at that juncture is that marriage is a legal institution, and government action requires at least a rational basis to proceed. So, rather than answer why society should have marriage laws if marriage is solely personal, they make empty arguments about “equality” and “civil rights.”  This particular language is able to stifle serious responses out of fear of being branded a modern-day Bull Connor. But that is not argument, it is question-begging–the logical equivalent of an emperor without clothes. Our society will be able to point this out when marriage defenders explain why the law can make some distinctions among people so long as they’re rationally based (as racial distinctions were not), and why a rational basis so exists with marital unions. Re-educating society may not change values, but as John Adams observed, facts are stubborn things–and marriage should be explained as the result of the facts of life."

"...A society where marriage is divorced from its procreative purpose within a stable union is a society that neuters its ability to prevent predatory men from impregnating women and abandoning them and to ensure that men take responsibility for their offspring. And it denies the child an incontrovertible social benefit: a present mother and father.

In such an alternative society—where marriage is divorced from procreation—the government steps in to look after children and relationships. And why not? If same-sex advocates view government validation of relationships as the means to achieve their social legitimacy, why not also look to government to solve the social failings of relationships?

Ultimately, the argument for same-sex marriage attempts to appeal to the personal promises we husbands and wives make to each other. But it only uses this course of reasoning because it cannot appeal to society’s reasons for establishing marriage laws in the first place. Yet when debating whether or not to license something, we cannot let our emotions determine the extent of government power. Government power that lacks a logical limiting principle—as the argument for same-sex marriage does—is inconsistent with limited government. To support limited government is to support traditional marriage." -- First Things

"...As we argue in our book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense," marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. Hence marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, permanent and exclusive. 

In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

... weakening marital norms will hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest. Rewriting the parenting ideal will also undermine in our mores and practice the special value of biological mothers and fathers. By marking support for the conjugal view as bigotry, it will curb freedoms of religion and conscience. Redefinition will do all this in the name of a basic error about what marriage is.

Some bonds remain unrecognized, and some people unmarried, under any marriage policy. If simply sharing a home creates certain needs, we can and should meet them outside civil marriage.

Moreover, if we reject the revisionist's bare equation of marriage with companionship—and the equation of marriage licenses with all-purpose personal approval—we'll see that conjugal marriage laws deprive no one of companionship or its joys, and mark no one as less worthy of fulfillment. (Indeed, using marriage law to express social inclusion might further marginalize whoever remains single.)

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our opponents will use the election results to push the idea that the radical redefinition of marriage is “inevitable.” Now more than ever, we have to fight back hard with prayers—and with strong arguments.

That's why I think it's Providential that we're just weeks away from the release of the strongest pro-marriage argument ever written, praised by the likes of Rick Warren and Cardinal Dolan!

What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, written by NOM co-founder and Princeton professor Robert P. George along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, is the best short, accessible argument for marriage as a union of man and woman. Their 2010 article on marriage was an instant international success, cited worldwide as the toughest, most eloquent pro-marriage argument out there. They've expanded and enhanced it for this book, further developing key arguments and responding to critics.

The book offers a devastating critique of all the pro-gay marriage arguments, which no one has been able to answer. Use it to challenge friends and coworkers who think "history is on their side."

Finally, it demolishes the usual objections to our cause—points about infertility, interracial marriage, equality, freedom, same-sex couples' practical needs, separation of Church and state, and much more.

And it's very affordable—just $9.92 on Amazon! Buy it now, "like" its Facebook page, and invite your friends and family to do the same.

See below the high praise it's already gotten!

What people are saying about Marriage and the Public Good

"This book brilliantly explains why the definition of marriage is so critical and why the strengthening of marriages is absolutely essential to our freedom and our future."
— Dr. Rick Warren, Author of The Purpose Driven Life and Pastor of Saddleback Church

"What Is Marriage? There is the question. Thanks to these three eloquent authors for so cogently reminding us of that, and for showing us how reflective reason answers it."
— Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York

"What Is Marriage? is the most insightful, eloquent, and influential defense of marriage as it has been historically and rightly understood. People of all traditions—and everyone who cares about the future of this central and sacred social institution—owe Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George an extraordinary debt."
— Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Yeshiva University

"With many countries on the verge of redefining a basic social institution, What Is Marriage? issues an urgent call for full deliberation of what is at stake. The authors make a compelling secular case for marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman, whose special status is based on society's interest in the nurture and education of children."
— Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School

"What a joy to see this book by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, which presents the most philosophically astute and historically accurate defense of traditional marriage to date. It exposes the incoherence of attempts to radically redefine marriage by showing the inherent wisdom in what is our oldest social institution."
— Rabbi David Novak, University of Toronto

"Some people have wondered what impact passage of the marriage protection amendment might have on rights and benefits for gay couples. The Marriage Amendment has no impact on rights and benefits for gay couples -- all the amendment would do is put our definition of marriage of one man and one woman which has always existed in Minnesota into our state constitution so that is protected from being redefined by activist judges or politicians."

"...Shelton reaches her conclusion that marriage supporters “are essentially advocating for the Church and the State to be one and the same. They are fighting for bigger government and cronyism in marriage, although they claim to want more individual freedom and personal liberties elsewhere. The inherent contradiction is astounding.”

But there is no contradiction here once one considers the actual arguments advanced by Shelton’s opponents and left unaddressed by Shelton herself.

In our article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “What is Marriage?” my co-authors and I have argued philosophically that marriage by its very nature is a union of a man and a woman. (Later this month Encounter Books will release an expanded and enhanced version of the argument.)

At the heart of the argument is an understanding that natural (not supernatural, sacramental, or religious) marriage is a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Prior to any governmental diktats, marriage has its own essential structure and norms and serves its own ends. Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is."

Their entire essay is well worth reading!

Do Rawlsian principles of "political liberalism" demand the legal recognition of same-sex romantic partnerhips as marriages?  I suspect that many of Rawls's conservative critics, as well as his liberal supporters, would suppose that the answer must be yes.  (For the conservative critics, that would be one more count against Rawls's general theory of justice and political morality.)  But now comes my former student, Matthew O'Brien, who in a brilliant article just out in the British Journal of American Legal Studies argues that the answer is actually no.  In fact, he maintains that Rawlsian principles, rigorously and consistently applied, forbid the re-definition of civil marriage to include same-sex partnerships.  The article, entitled "Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage:  Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family," is available online here.

"...With just a few days left before the election let me summarize what we believe exactly. Number one we believe that God is the author of marriage. He created marriage for the benefit of couples but also for the next generation. Traditional marriage has take hits from divorce and other failings but fundamentally the institution of marriage has served society well for thousands of years. We believe that children need both a mom and a dad and that marriage is our best way of encouraging that result. In fact the overwhelming body of evidence establishes that children do best when raised by the two people responsible for bringing them into the world, their parents. Marriage is at risk of being redefined by political activists, unaccountable judges and ambitious politicians with no voter input. We believe there are major consequences to society of marriage is redefined..."

"...If you think that the two opposing sides in the marriage debate are talking past each other, you are right. The reason for this is that they are operating from completely different and incompatible models defining the essence of marriage.

The traditional model defines marriage as the lifelong commitment, made by two persons of the opposite sex, to support each other and the children that are the product of their physical union. Marriage as a legal status is based on the physical relationship between a man and a woman, which is based on human biology, which if left to its natural course normally results in children. Society confers this status because of its compelling interest in children.

The revisionist model holds that marriage should not be limited by human biology or reproduction. "Oppositeness," the revisionists say, is not required for a fulfilling sexual relationship; therefore, it should not be required for marriage. People who love each other ought to be given the freedom to marry. Marriage should thus be redefined as a union of hearts and minds: Love should be the only criterion.

It is difficult to understand, however, why unions of hearts and minds need government regulation. The state has no compelling interest in licensing friendships." -- StarTribune

"...Politicians at both state and federal levels often focus their debates on whether policies will help or hurt children. Even courts are guided by the legal principle that family conflicts should be adjudicated to provide for "the best interests of the child."

It seems everyone realizes that what's best for kids should guide our governmental policies and social institutions. This is because children really are our most precious resource, and government and society have a compelling interest in seeing them thrive.

It is surprising, then, that the conversation about what the definition of marriage in Minnesota should be has left many who speak up about the best interests of kids labeled as "bigots," "haters," "discriminators" and worse.

Marriage is the most prochild institution we have -- and the only institution that connects children with their parents. Through marriage, men and women come together complementarily to form one union, not only for the benefit of the couple, but also for the children who benefit from being loved and raised by their mother and father.

Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and father, accountable to the child and each other. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

The overwhelming body of social science supports what we already understand to be true -- children do best when raised by their married mother and father. As the journal Child Trends affirms, "[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

Every child has a right to know and, to the extent possible, be cared for by the two people who brought them into the world. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a mother and father. And we all have a right to live in a society that recognizes the importance of mothers and fathers for a child's well-being."

There’s been a strange turn of opinions about fatherhood—at least in recent public debates. Decades of research have now documented the tremendous challenges children face when they grow up without their fathers. But you would never know it by looking at some of the recent public arguments for “genderless parenting.”

So what do the decades of research on fathers say? Boys from fatherless families are twice as likely to end up in prison before age 30. Girls raised in homes without their fathers are much more likely to engage in early sexual behavior and end up pregnant as teenagers—for example, girls whose fathers left home before their daughters turned six are six times more likely to end up pregnant as teenagers. Children who grow up without married mothers and fathers are also more likely to experience depression, behavioral problems, and school expulsion.

...Canadian scholar, Andrea Doucet, has explored this question in her book Do Men Mother? Her extensive research with 118 male primary caregivers, including stay-at-home dads, led her to conclude that fathers do not “mother.” And that’s a good thing. Although mothering and fathering have much in common, there were persistent, critical differences that were important for children’s development.

To begin, fathers more often used fun and playfulness to connect with their children. No doubt, many a mother has wondered why her husband can’t seem to help himself from “tickling and tossing” their infant—while she stands beside him holding her breath in fear. And he can’t understand why all she wants to do is “coo and cuddle.” Yet as Doucet found, playfulness and fun are often critical modes of connection with children—even from infancy.

Fathers were also more likely to encourage children’s risk taking—whether on the playground, in school work, or in trying new things. While mothers typically discouraged risk-taking, fathers guided their children in deciding how much risk to take and encouraged them in it. At the same time, fathers were more attuned to developing a child’s physical, emotional, and intellectual independence—in everything from children making their own lunches and tying their own shoes to doing household chores and making academic decisions.

...Arguments for the non-essential father may reflect an effort to accept the reality that many children today grow up without their dads. But surely a more effective and compassionate approach would be to acknowledge the unique contributions of both mothers and fathers in their children’s lives, and then do what we can to ensure that becomes a reality for more children.

In the current issue of Cambridge Papers, he takes up the case for redefining marriage and finds it wanting.

Here is the summary:

"The Government's proposal to introduce same-sex marriage seems to rest on reasons of equality, stability and convenience. But on closer inspection, these are respectively incomplete, speculative and negligible. As currently defined, marriage secures the equal value of men and women. It also promotes the welfare of children. By contrast, the new definition of marriage will unavoidably call into question its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature. Such an unravelling of marriage is too high a price to pay for a proposal which fulfils no practical legal need."

And here is his conclusion:

"The proposal to change the current definition of marriage depends on a sense that the man-woman criterion confers no distinctive social goods and represents an arbitrary limitation. But this is not the case. Marriage affirms the equal value of men and women, and promotes the welfare of children. Moreover, the logic of equal recognition and radical choice means that the boundaries of any new definition will be far more vulnerable. Challenges to its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature will be unavoidable. Marriage risks becoming any formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time. On such a trajectory, marriage will eventually unravel altogether."

You can read the entire piece here.

"The fundamental public purpose of marriage is to provide the ideal environment for children to be raised by the people who brought them into the world, their parents. The drive to redefine marriage to accommodate the political demands of same-sex couples separates the interests of children from the purpose of marriage."

"In 2004 Swedish pentecostal pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for showing disrespect for homosexuals in a sermon he delivered in the pulpit from 2003 ... shifting to the Netherlands, ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997 followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birth rate has been moving up at a striking clip."

"...Stable relationships are, of course, vitally important for the well-being of children and the good of society, but simple stability is not enough. Equally important is the loving presence of both mom and dad, even as it must be acknowledged, with great pain, that in certain circumstances such an ideal is impossible. But tragic exceptions should not provoke us to ignore the basic fact that children crave and long for the presence of both a mother and a father. The marriage amendment implicitly acknowledges this fact, a claim of reason and common sense."

"Is it fair for the government to promote natural marriage but not same-sex marriage? Isn't this discrimination against homosexuals? What about equality? These questions are addressed in a new video ad by the National Organization for Marriage.

The conservative marriage group released the video, titled "Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)," on Monday, weeks ahead of the November elections when voters in four states will vote on whether to redefine marriage.

...What about tolerance?

"Yes. Same-sex advocates need to be more tolerant," the video argues. "Homosexual relationships are already tolerated in the U.S. They can already commit themselves to each other until death do them part without government endorsement.

"But only the union of one man and one woman should be promoted because it alone is the foundation of a civilized society.

"That's not bigotry. That's biology."

Voters in Washington State, Minnesota, Maryland and Maine will vote in November on whether to protect traditional marriage or allow same-sex couples to get married."

"To start, there have been hundreds of Canadian proceedings in courts, human rights commissions and employment boards, against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. Religious groups and leaders have been punished. For instance, the Archbishop of Calgary was forced to answer to the Alberta human rights commission for preaching the Church's teaching on marriage."

Government promotes natural marriage for a reason, permits many other relationships (including gay relationships) while prohibiting very few relationships (like incest):

You can join NOM's efforts to protect marriage by visiting www.MillionDollarMarriageMatch.com.

"If a pastor, religious group or person of faith could not agree with this new definition of marriage than they would find themselves in conflict with the law, and they could face legal consequences. In some other countries like Canada and Sweden, for example, ministers and pastors have been hauled before human rights bodies and even arrested for preaching about their religious views of marriage."

"Compared to married couples, the dissolution rates for male and female same-sex cohabiters were seven and five times higher, respectively. Among cohabiters, the differences were smaller: The dissolution rate for male and female same-sex cohabiters was approximately double the rate for different-sex cohabiters."

Moreover, the author found no increase in stability between the 1958 and 1970 birth cohort.

These findings agree with the other literature I've seen about the relative stability and instability of same-sex vs. opposite-sex couples.

Rafter responds by calling Maggie's citation of the study an "insult to same-sex couples" which is aimed to "demonize" and "harm" them and implies a "insidious mission."

Rafter concludes this way (to make it easier to respond, I'm numbering his sentences):

[1] This is an insulting and flawed argument. [2] I am one of the many, many LGBT people in a stable, committed same-sex relationship, and my heterosexual parents are currently going through a divorce. [3] People put a great deal of time, commitment, and energy into forming meaningful relationships – regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex unions. [4] To sweepingly imply that one demographic is more prone to breakups – and to use that claim as a reason to deny an entire community of people basic rights such as marriage and the ability to start a family – is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

Let's take these in turn:

Sentence 1: Rafter's statement is not an argument, just an accusation.

Sentence 2: Rafter provides in evidence of his counter-position exactly 2 couples - him and his parents. This is anecdotal. I could just as easily say all the heterosexuals I know are stable and all the gay people I know are not, but this would not be an argument either.

Sentence 3: We can grant that many people put time and energy into forming relationships. But the question which the author of the Journal of Marriage and Family actually looked at is whether they are successful in doing so. The author argued that we one can observe significant differences between the various groups he studied. Rafter chooses to ignore this legitimate discussion.

Sentence 4: Gallagher (and the author of the journal article) didn't "sweepingly imply" anything. The author of the journal article conducted scientific research and provided evidence for his conclusions. If anyone is "sweepingly implying" it's clearly Rafter! Finally, Gallagher was very modest about what she actually concluded from the evidence. She explicitly said: "This of course cannot tell us how children fare on average when they are raised by stable same-sex couples, or whether gay marriage will significantly increase stability in same-sex couples." Does that sound like a "sweepingly implying" sentence? Hardly.

If Rafter wants to look at the evidence we do have of same-sex marital stability, we can look at it:

"Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men."

If Rafter actually had conclusive proof for his positions he would state it. Instead he chose to attack Gallagher and the Journal of Marriage and Family. This does a disservice to reasonable debate, and it's notable considering how much time HRC spends accusing pro-marriage advocates of engaging in heated and empty rhetoric. Pot, meet kettle.

Rafter's posturing may please his readers at HRC, but fair-minded outside observers should take note of how both sides of this debate are actually conducting it.

"...Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t. I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.

Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition."

"...will President Obama's flip-flop on the issue impact how the country views gay marriage and impact the Marriage Amendment campaign in Minnesota? ... the evidence says no. President Obama has opposed every marriage amendment in recent years including Prop 8 in California and most recently the marriage amendment in North Carolina yet voters have passed them all. In fact surveys right before the vote in North Carolina this past may showed that a plurality of Democrats supported the marriage amendment, including two-to-one support among African Americans and majority of Independents and an overwhelming majority of Republicans."

"A new business report proves that's not true. A new CNBC study of America's top states for doing business shows that all 10 of the top 10 business-friendly states in America prohibit gay marriage. Furthermore, 9 of the top 10 have marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions that are similar to the one proposed here in Minnesota."

"This debate is about two competing views of marriage. Those who oppose the marriage protection amendment believe that marriage is fundamentally about what adults want for themselves. They see marriage as essentially a private matter and argue that society should let any two eligible adults regardless of gender form a relationship and have it legally recognized as a marriage. Now we believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman for a very specific purpose. Not only does marriage unite the couple to each other but it was created to care for the next generation. We believe marriage is not merely a private matter but serves a very public purpose of providing the ideal environment for fathers and mothers to raise any children born of their union. These two views of marriage cannot co-exist because there can only be one definition of marriage in society. Which view of marriage prevails in Minnesota is what is at stake in this campaign."

"Gay marriage advocates have maintained for a long time that there are no differences in outcomes for children raised by same sex parents as compared with those raised by a married mom and dad but two important new academic studies show that the no differences claim is false."

Embed Part 1:

Embed Part 2:

You can pick-up a copy of the new book here.

"In the midst of all the “Vote NO” signs that litter the landscape, telling us not to “limit the freedom to marry,” I pray we will defend traditional marriage this November. I fear too many Minnesotans are letting so-called “fairness” throw sand in the eyes of common sense.

“Marriage is about love and a committed relationship between two people,” wrote Richard D. Hurt of Rochester in an Aug. 5 Letter to the Editor, “and should be provided irrespective of color, race, ethnicity, religion and gender. To stigmatize a whole group of people by prohibiting marriage is a step backward.”

No one wants to prohibit marriages based on race, ethnicity, or religion. But if a mere emotional bond is the only requirement for marriage, then what prohibits “marriage” between two brothers, two sisters, or a father and son?

Fecundity is a gift exclusive to opposite-sex unions. That fact is no less “fair” than saying humans can’t breathe under water or mosquitoes can’t complete algebra assignments. Healthy societies come from healthy families in which children are not denied their right to be reared by Mom and Dad."

Controversy has been sparked as the first civil union between three separate partners was registered in Tupã, in the Northwestern region of Sao Paulo state, Brazil last week. The three-person union has shocked religious groups in the country, and sparked further concerns that the traditional family unit is being further eroded by the current day society.

The actual declaration of the union between the man and two women was in fact made three months ago, but it finally became public this week.

Notary officer, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, has explained that the three partners lived together and wanted to publicly declare their status in order to guarantee their rights. Checks were conducted to see if there was any legal impediment to the unions and the notary office has confirmed that none were found.

Attorney Nathaniel Batista dos Santos Junior oversaw the legal process of creating the three-way declaration. -- Global Christian Post

My friend and NOM's President Brian Brown absolutely put a smackdown on Dan Savage the other day in their grand debate about marriage in Seattle, Washington. For those who don't know him, Savage is the foul-mouthed face of the gay marriage movement. To understand how badly Brian demolished Savage, consider this: Savage is complaining about the subject chosen for the debate (which his hand-picked moderator selected); he's complaining about the location (his own dining room table, also his choice); The New York Times reporter who moderated decided to write a kitschy odd-ball article about the encounter (including how he was drunk), rather than a substantive review of the debate, and Savage has buried the video of the debate down near the bottom of his own website.

In other words, Brian so demolished Dan Savage that gay activists and the media now want to bury it.

Let's begin at the beginning. You may remember when Savage was a keynote speaker at a national conference for high-school journalists, held in Seattle. The creator of the "It Gets Better" anti-bullying campaign, Savage is himself a renowned bully. During his "lecture," Savage was true to form and used the occasion to berate the young Christians in the audience who were compelled to attend, mocking their faith, calling the bible "B...S..." and ridiculing people who accept the bible's teaching on homosexuality. After this diatribe had gone on for a while, some students began to walk out, and they were targeted by Savage with hateful and insulting comments. You can watch the video here, but be forewarned—Savage seems unable to communicate without resorting to cursing and invective.

Anyway, Brian saw the clip of Savage berating the teens and he immediately called him out in an email to NOM supporters, challenging him to a debate anytime, anywhere. "I'm here, you name the time and the place," Brian wrote. "Let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back." A few days later, Savage accepted the debate challenge in a three-word post that included an f*bomb. (Savage's incessant use of the f*bomb and similar language reminds me of the great line from the film "Broken Trail," when the character played by Scott Cooper asks the foulmouthed matron of a bar, "Do you kiss your mama with that mouth?")

I don't imagine that Dan Savage realized what he was getting himself into. It's my sense that our opponents have a view of us as bumpkins and boobs, reliant solely on our belief in God, and unable to defend our position on the basis of reason and rationality. But if you know Brian Brown, you know that he's an Oxford University-educated and intellectually gifted advocate who can combine philosophy, religious history, natural law and economics in mounting a reasoned defense of marriage. He's one of our movement's many brilliant advocates, not the least of whom include NOM's co-founders Maggie Gallagher and Robby George.

Dan Savage picked the location of the debate—Savage's own house. Savage picked the debate moderator, New York Times reporter Mark Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer, a supporter of same-sex marriage, picked the topic: "Resolved, Christianity is bad for LGBT persons," which both Savage and Brian accepted. And Savage insisted that the debate be recorded, no doubt relishing the thought of pushing out clips to a waiting gay activist community, anxious to see him take on the "evil" Brian Brown. Brian agreed, asking only that both sides get the full video to make publicly available.

I don't know too many people who would accept a debate under such circumstances, where even the moderator is openly on the other side. Yet Brian not only accepted, he embraced the opportunity… and he went on to demolish Savage!

As a political consultant, I've seen my share of debates. I could tell immediately that Savage was not up to the challenge. He appeared nervous and stilted, and he had pages of notes in front of him. No doubt he'd been very heavily coached. He managed to avoid the use of the f*bomb entirely, but was not able to avoid the occasional reference to bull excrement. Brian on the other hand was comfortable, confident in his subject matter, laughed easily, and had no notes.

The debate lasted just over an hour. Some of you have already watched it in its entirety. But I realize that not everyone has the time in their busy schedule to watch the full debate, so I went through the video and picked out about ten minutes of highlights. Please take a few minutes to watch.

What you will see is a passionate, reasoned, articulate defense of marriage, and a presentation of the profound public good it serves. You will see Brian demolish Dan Savage's arguments that the bible cannot be believed when it comes to marriage. You will see Brian make a case about the inherent nature of marriage, and how that nature cannot be altered. It is what it is and it cannot be redefined. Gay "marriage" can never exist, Brian explains, because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman.

Most of all, you will see Brian make a reasoned argument about the very nature of marriage as society's way of connecting children to their parents, and about how marriage is and always must be about something more than satisfying the desires of adults. If marriage is only about the public recognition of the relationships adults want for themselves, Brian asks, then why would this recognition be limited to just two people? Why not three, or four, or even more? Dan Savage struggles with the polygamy/polyamory argument, first bristling about having to answer it, and then articulating (poorly) what is essentially an economic argument against the practice—that under a polygamist regime, high-status men will accumulate many wives because of their status, which would create a shortage of women for less accomplished men. That would be unfair, Savage argues. Hmmm. I can think of a lot of arguments to mount against the inherent immorality of polygamy, but an appeal to economic equity isn't one of them.

As an aside, take a look at the statue of Jesus behind Dan Savage in some of the clips. Notice how he has it adorned with what appears to be press passes and convention tags, along with a "NYC Pride" badge. That tells you all you need to know about how the nation's leading gay marriage advocate feels about the role of faith in America.

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the marriage debate over the last few years is the way elitist judges and media commentators sanctimoniously contend there is "no rational basis" for maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This pabulum is served up regularly on the editorial pages of The New York Times and others in the elite media. And it's what the corrupt gay former federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled in declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. As the campaign manager for Prop 8, I was on the list of potential witnesses that Ted Olsen and David Boies were to call at the trial. Regrettably, they didn't have the guts to put me on the stand where I could deliver a reasoned, passionate defense of the institution of marriage.

The other day in Dan Savage's dining room, Brian Brown spoke for me, and for millions of others, and he did so brilliantly.

Sometime later this year, the US Supreme Court will very likely accept a case that will be the Roe v Wade of marriage. They will be set to determine if there is, indeed, a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Brian Brown answered that question resoundingly in the affirmative during the Smackdown in Seattle. Someone ought to forward a copy of the debate to the justices of the Supreme Court. If they see it, it will be game, set and match.

Bravo, Brian!

"The overwhelming body of scientific evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that children do best when they are raised by their married mother and father. In fact when their parents are married to each other children are more likely to enjoy better relationships with their parents and greater family stability, they enjoy better physical health and experience fewer mental health and emotional problems."

Here's how C-Span's Book TV introduced her appearance with co-author John Corvino of Wayne State:

"Gay rights advocate John Corvino and conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher engage in a point/counterpoint discussion of gay marriage.  Their intended goal is not to win the debate but to raise and clarify as many points of disagreement as possible, explaining not only how they disagree but why."

You can pick-up a copy of her new book here.

She responds:

"Actually, the opposite is true. There's no doubt that the issue about whether we should redefine marriage is one of the most hotly debated across the nation. [...] Here in Minnesota, enacting the Marriage Protection Amendment would not end the conversation about marriage, it is actually the only way to guarantee that voters will always be a part of the conversation. Without the amendment, special interest advocates could take their cause to activist politicians and judges who would then decide the definition of marriage for us, without letting us have a say. Voters will be excluded from the decision. That's what happened across the border in Iowa. "

"Many make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is religious. A Facebook friend recently posted this quote: “Have you ever noticed the same people who claim that marriage is a religious institution only think that LGBT people shouldn’t get married? They never seem to object to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists getting married.” 

This is a perfect summary of the ignorance with which many (though by no means all) gay marriage proponents operate.

...Because of the harmony of faith and reason, thoughtful Christians can speak of marriage in terms of both categories. And we sometimes confuse categories, and that proves confusing to the general public. But make no mistake: Our defense of marriage is no act of legerdemain, in which we try to force what we know solely by revelation on the public. (Observe no one is pushing laws forcing participation in the sacraments or forbidding participation in a particular faith.) Rather, we are concerned for the common good, a rational concern motivated by our very faith. Convinced that reason and nature teach us the truth about marriage, we will continue to make arguments in the public square about the public goods of marriage, for no society or person can long thrive kicking against the goads of reason and nature."

It's well worth the watching!

Skyline Church: Conversation on the Definition of Marriage from SkylineChurch on Vimeo.

How do you think it went? Whose arguments were more compelling?

8/25 at 10:00PM
8/26 at 9:00PM
8/27 at 12:00PM and 3:00PM

Mark your calendars!

She answers in part:

"Marriage is not a private matter that exists only for the benefit of adults. Marriage serves an intrinsically public purpose, to provide for the care and development of the next generation, connecting children to the people responsible for bringing them into the world -- their parents. Government did not create marriage it merely recognizes it as the important public institution that it is and as such, government has no business redefining marriage..."

"Town clerks who were ordered to solemnize same-sex marriages or be fired. Catholic charities was forced to close its adoption agency as it could not abandon its teaching in order to comply with state rules requiring placing children with same-sex couples. After this man's six year old son was exposed to instruction about homosexual relationships in kindergarten, David Parker was arrested for trespassing for protesting the instruction. He spent the night in jail and was taken to court in handcuffs..."