Protecting marriage

Deseret Morning News editorial
Published: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 10:31 a.m. MDT
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Previous generations in this country would have had little trouble understanding the need to protect marriage from those who would redefine it. That is not merely, as some would suggest, because Americans beyond a certain age are prejudiced against homosexuals and less enlightened than today's younger population. It is because they understood, as a matter that is self-evident, that "marriage" is a narrowly defined term that means so much more to the state than simply recognizing that two people love each other.

They knew, as society had always understood, that marriage is, as Webster's defines it, "The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made this clear in a letter he sent to senators earlier this week. He said, ". . . marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children."

Opponents will counter that many married couples do not have children. Some marry at an age beyond which children could be conceived. But that does not diminish the role of a committed husband-and-wife relationship in child-rearing. It does, however, recognize the other stabilizing effects marriage has on society.

Story continues below
Others will counter that gay couples can be loving parents. But a gay relationship cannot produce children. Marriage solemnizes the creative act that, without total commitment, can wreak havoc on society.

In addition, plenty of evidence exists about the importance of two-parent families, and of male and female role models for children.

The current Senate debate over a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been muddled by talk of discrimination and homophobia. These are red herrings. Government would have absolutely no interest in controlling and legitimizing marriages if not for the fact that it provides the ideal framework in which children can be conceived and reared.

A constitutional amendment would not be necessary, except that courts are beginning to impose a new standard of marriage on society. Romney understands this well. The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state by fiat. Meanwhile, 58 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be illegal, but they are in danger of losing their voice in the legislative process.

That loss would not be without consequences.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.