Much ado about marriage
- May 17, 2012 - comment -
For all the fanfare on marriage over the past week, one might have mistakenly thought it was National Marriage Week—the annual occasion that fell on the calendar precisely three months earlier, Feb. 7-14. Instead, North Carolina and President Obama weighed in on the age-old institution, sounding a stark contrast of convictions. And now, for better or worse, marriage is back on the national map.
By a 61 to 39 percent vote, North Carolina citizens chose May 8 to protect marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. One day later, President Obama announced he had “evolved” in adopting a different position, one affirming same-sex “marriage.”
“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” said the president May 9 in an ABC News interview. In fact, he has come nearly full circle on the issue, with a history that includes expressing a belief that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
The pair of actions—North Carolina’s affirmation of traditional marriage and the president’s redefinition of it—help comprise the latest episode in the intensifying battle for the family.
“It saddens me and grieves me that the president has endorsed same-sex ‘marriage,’” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This is an issue that every time the American people have had a chance to vote on, including [in North Carolina], they have voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage as between a man and a woman.”
The Tar Heel state voters who said yes to God’s definition of marriage joined voters in 29 other states that have chosen to enshrine traditional marriage in their state constitutions. Put another way, marriage maintained its perfect batting average—now 32 for 32—when the question of same-sex “marriage” has been placed before the people on the ballot in some fashion. Voters in four other states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington—will likely have the opportunity to vote on the marriage issue in November.
The North Carolina vote came amid same-sex “marriage” advocates’ continued suggestion that, pointing to some recent polls, support for protecting traditional marriage is on the rocks. Reality, though, is not always what polls suggest. Just before North Carolinians headed to the polls May 8, a Public Policy poll showed the amendment winning by a 57 to 39 margin—four percentage points closer than the actual final 22-point spread. This has been true elsewhere. And the margins of victory have seldom even been close. Of the 30 states that have voted on constitutional marriage amendments, only two—California and South Dakota—decided the question by less than a double-digit margin. On average, states have approved amendments with 67 percent of voter support.
Meanwhile, a different message echoes from the nation’s capital. On Monday, President Obama followed announcement of his shift on marriage by decrying the Defense of Marriage Act, stating, “Congress is clearly on notice that I think it’s a bad idea.” Naturally, this step follows the Justice Department’s announcement in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the 1996 law—specifically the portion defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes—against legal challenges; the law popularly known as DOMA also protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.
Repeal of DOMA would put marriage on a collision course with the states. The deceptively titled Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) introduced in the Senate would do just that. Under such a repeal measure, the 30 states with constitutional amendments preserving traditional marriage could quickly see their line in the sand crossed by the federal government. With DOMA dismantled, states would lack federal protection in refusing to accept same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.
A radical shift in a host of other things would result as well. Financial benefits, including health care coverage, could be mandated to “wedded” same-sex couples. Business owners’ conscience rights could be trampled under foot. Elementary school textbooks would be rewritten to teach a new “normality” of two mommies or two daddies. To be sure, myriad laws would necessarily be changed to reflect a supposed legislative enlightenment on what constitutes marriage.
For millennia, civil governments have understood the profound implications of marriage on society. That’s why governments—apart from in just a few nations in recent years—have chosen not to expand the marriage institution beyond the recognition of one man and one woman.
To be sure, marriage isn’t much ado about nothing. As one considers its impact on children and the future of society, the marriage vow “I do” has much ado about most everything.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Children, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty, ,