Gary L. Bauer is the President of the Family Research Council, a
Washington, D.C.-based research and education organization.
By Gary Bauer
Let’s get a couple of things straight. Defending marriage is not
"bigotry." And defending normalcy and tradition is not
"extremist."
The truly extreme invention of homosexual "marriage" has been
conjured up by homosexual activists and a handful of radical judges
in Hawaii. Counterfeit "marriage" would undermine legal and
cultural support for all marriages and jeopardize many basic
freedoms.
Nobody is being denied the right to marry. They just have to
meet the core requirements that the two sexes be present. If
marriage is based on the "feelings" of those in other
relationships, then there is no logical reason for not letting a
man marry ten women, or for gutting other requirements, such as
those regarding minimum age or blood relative status.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) puts the federal government
on record as defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman
as husband and wife." DOMA also asserts Congress’ constitutional
prerogative of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause so
that the other 49 states will not be forced to submit to the
novelties of Hawaii’s courts on the matter of homosexual
"marriage."
Opponents like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) are trying to kill
DOMA by attaching unrelated amendments to it such as the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, a back-door way to create national "gay
rights." These ill-advised distractions should be rejected and DOMA
considered on its own merits.
Marriage has been under siege for some time. No-fault divorce, a
sex-saturated culture, and fiscal and social pressures have
sundered many a marriage and discouraged others from happening.
Many Americans are wrestling with the pain of broken families and
are trying to rebuild their lives. Fatherlessness has spawned
America’s most destructive social problems: out-of-wedlock
pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases, alcohol and drug abuse,
educational failure and a frightening epidemic of crime.
So if the collapse of marriage is the problem, why don’t we move
to strengthen this irreplaceable institution? Well, we should. Yet
we are being asked to do precisely the opposite. We are even being
asked to pretend that two men could replace a mother in a child’s
life or that two women could take the place of a father and that it
won’t make any difference to children.
Many relationships involve "love." But marriage is a unique
bonding of the two sexes, with the promise of procreation of
children. Marriage establishes kinship, the passage of family
traditions, names and property through the generations, and is the
most important source of social stability.
Often I am asked how it hurts anyone if two men or two women
want to call what they have "marriage?" Well, for starters, it
hurts everyone who disagrees. Here’s how: a government that imposes
a definition of marriage contradicting the great religions would
force millions outside the civil law.
-Businessmen and women would be prosecuted for failing to offer
benefits to homosexual "spouses."
-Activists would gain a big tool to push for adoption of
children by homosexuals.
-Organizations like the Boy Scouts of America would come under
increased pressure to abandon their moral standards.
In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s
Amendment Two and showed little regard for the right of people to
govern themselves. Congress needs to reassert its constitutional
role as the lawmaker and the voice of the people. DOMA sends a
message to the Supreme Court and other courts that they cannot
replace morality with immorality in the nation’s laws.