Marriage as Necessary for Children

In the last post, I discussed the impact of marriage on society. Continuing the secular argument for traditional marriage, this post will focus on those most directly impacted by marriage: children. The bulk of today’s material is from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute. Visit their blog and sign up for their free emails for the latest information in this on-going controversy. You can also subscribe (for free) to their podcasts to hear Dr. Morse interviewed on various programs as well as stimulating debates.


If not for the helpless child, marriage (or even monogamy) would not be necessary (in the secular viewpoint). Marriage ties parents, especially fathers, to their children. Why especially fathers? Somehow when a child is born, there’s always a Mom around! The marriage of parents is necessary and just for the child. Children have a vested interest in the stability and permanence of their parents’ union, but they can’t defend themselves. Marriage proactively protects that right.


It is true that not every marriage has children, but every child has parents. Are some children entitled to parents and some not?


Same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa in the court case Varnum vs. Brien. When the Judge reviewed the case, he examined the purpose of marriage. He came up with three points:

• To pool resources- but you don’t need marriage to achieve this


• For affirmation and support- again, marriage is not necessary for this.


• For help raising kids- and he glosses over this point, but THIS POINT is the crucial point for the justice of the child!

All points other than children can be solved in some other way. You don’t need marriage to solve these problems.


(A side note- this court case in Iowa was quite the David vs. Goliath case. The homosexual rights establishment brought twenty million dollars to the case. Polk County, Iowa has fifteen million dollars for the entire court system. Lambda had lawyers from Harvard and Columbia. Iowa’s law was defended not by the state’s attorney general, nor even by the county attorney, but by two assistant county attorneys. The homosexual rights establishment continues to use progressive judges to assert their agenda on the public. When protecting or defining traditional marriage comes to a vote by the public, it wins every time.)


If marriage is the union of two people, and not the union of man and woman, four key principles will be undermined.


1. Children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their biological parents. This does not always happen, but we try to live up to it. SSM undermines that principle. With SSM, children will be “entitled” to a relationship with one biological parent and that parent’s partner.


2. Biology is the primary way that we determine parentage. True- adoption is an exception, but it is a child-centered exception that does not undermine the basic principle. Adoption provides children with the parents they need; SSM provides parents with the children they want.


3. The State currently and historically simply recognizes parenthood, it does not determine it. You simply record it, with fatherhood presumed as the husband of the mother. Is he always the father? No. There are cases of affairs and sperm-donors as the biological father. But if we presume the “parenthood” to be the same-sex partner of the mother, it will NEVER be true. We’re replacing the biological meaning of parenthood with whatever the state says it is. In Canada, you no longer have natural parents, only legal parents. This is a great shift in power to the State.


4. Mothers and Fathers are distinct and not perfectly interchangeable. SSM advocates claim it makes no difference to the child whether they have two moms, two dads, one mom and a dad… You can substitute in and out. The only that matters is the relationship. But this is not logical. Biology is necessary and important for parents to get a child, but the child should never care about the missing parent?


Same-sex marriage cannot equal opposite sex marriage, because it requires a third party for children. This leads to triple parenting, so why not extend marriage to polygamy and marry all the “parents”. In fact, “Jonathan Yarbrough, part of the first couple to get a same-sex marriage in Provincetown, Mass, said, ‘I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner…In our case it is. We have an open marriage.’” (National Organization for Marriage at www.nationformarriage.org) Both Canada and Pennsylvania have recognized three adults as legal parents, even on the birth certificate. Redefining marriage has the effect of redefining parents. We will have legal, not natural parents. Parents will be whoever the State says the parents are, instead of the biological mother and father.


Next Monday, we will examine the effect of redefining marriage on our civil liberties. Then we will move to the Christian understanding of the issue.


I welcome your comments and questions. Please, use respectful language. This is not a forum for insulting any one person or group of people, but must recognize the inherent dignity of all human beings.