In Defense of Traditional Marriage

I've been doing some very interesting study on marriage and the marriage debate in America. I recently read both the majority and dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case legalizing same sex marriage. The arguments on both sides are compelling and make sense if we really try and see both points of view. The differences are matters of belief and principle. I've come to the conclusion that for me, just because I choose one side, doesn't mean I have to hate or vilify the opposition. But just as one side can proclaim their beliefs at the top of their lungs, doesn't mean that I can't do the same with love, civility and respect. So today, that is what I hope to begin to do.

For the record, and so there is no mistaking where I stand, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. That union allows for the formation of families through procreation and gives children the best chance at happy successful lives. That said, I also believe everyone has the right to choose who and how they love. I believe that choice is a fundamental part of God’s plan and we should respect that. But respecting other’s choices doesn’t mean allowing my beliefs to be steamrolled by the vocal majority. It is my right and duty to add my voice in defense of traditional marriage.

One of the things I found most interesting about the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was their lack of focus on families. Nearly the entire majority opinion focused on the desires of consenting adults, whether it be property or hospital rights or the right to love who they love. None of which I fundamentally disagree with. The court spoke only briefly about the need for same sex families to feel that their families are equal to traditional families, but nothing about the contributions and unique strengths each gender brings to a family or the fact that, throughout history, the primary focus of family has been unity through procreation and rearing children in loving, stable homes. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Roberts said, “[Marriage] arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” I felt the court deliberately tip toed around that aspect of the debate. There is no argument against the fact that creating families has traditionally been the reason for marriage.

 One of my biggest issues with the ruling, and the dissenting opinions agreed, is that the federal government took away the state’s rights, and the people’s rights, to define marriage through the democratic process. Americans were having the debate they needed to have to work through the issue. Apparently, the Supreme Court felt the need to speed up the process by deciding for us; like we weren’t intelligent enough to work through it ourselves. Judge Roberts argues, “[The court] seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” In essence, the court took it upon itself to change the culture of our country by redefining marriage; something the people should have had the opportunity to do themselves. In taking that away, the court also took away the ability of the American people to come to terms with the outcome of the debate organically. Instead, we are trying to wrap our minds around the ruling.

 So, what does this case mean for those of us who value traditional marriage? Do we rollover and accept what has happened? Of course not! While we can’t change the court’s ruling, we can kindly and civilly declare our support of traditional marriage. We can talk about its importance in society and in the social issues in this country. We can stress the unique contributions of each gender in rearing children. We can be examples of loving, unified families who take seriously the responsibility to care for families. We should never stop kindly sharing our views, just as the opposing side will never stop sharing theirs. This debate should continue so we, as a people, can get to a point where we can respect both sides of the issue, and disagree without vilifying or degrading those who believe differently than we do

**Week 3**