We Hold These Truths
The White House recently told the press there couldn’t be more difference between my position on gay marriage and President Obama’s.
On reflection, I agree.
President Obama’s position on marriage is constantly “evolving,” as he so often says. He’s not sure what marriage is, or what it should become, and no doubt right now he’s consulting highly-paid polling experts to determine how his position – and marriage itself – should morph next. This should come as no surprise given the President’s musings about the other great moral issue of our time, the protection of human life.
In a 2008 campaign forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama answered, “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a science perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” But as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama articulated a very clear view of when a baby was granted rights. He was the only senator to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in committee; legislation that protected babies who survived an abortion and were born alive. He was the only senator to speak against it on the senate floor.
At the time, the constitutional law professor boldly asserted, that “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a 9 month old–child that was delivered to term.” He says children only have rights who are 9-months old and delivered at term. So, does that mean any child born before 9 months is not entitled to rights?
By contrast, millions of Americans, including myself, know what we think about human life and marriage. We know not only what we think but why we believe what we believe. We know that some truths are bigger than the next election and should not shift with political consultants’ advice. And among those great, enduring, and foundational truths, I believe, are life and marriage.
An unborn child is not just a clump of cells. He or she is a human life, as worthy of basic dignity and respect as any one of us. Each precious, irreplaceable human life is too infinitely valuable to permit courts to redefine its meaning away. I fought against Partial Birth Abortion, a horrific procedure supported by President Obama, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the highest court found the law banning the practice unconstitutional, I sent it back to the justices a second time so they could get it right.
Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.
A husband is a man who commits to a woman, to her and any children she may give him. He commits to his wife without any reservations, to share with her all his worldly goods and to exclude all others from this intimate communion of life. From this vow of marriage comes a wonderful and unique good: any children their union creates will have a mom and a dad united in love, in one family.
That’s the special work of marriage in law – to connect things that otherwise fray and fragment: love, life, money, moms, and dads.
A man who does not seek to do this – who doesn’t choose to give himself to a woman and any children they may have together in this unique and special way – may well be a very good man and have wonderful other kinds of relationships, but he isn’t seeking to be a husband. We can’t redefine reality to accommodate politically fashionable wishes. Words matter because they capture enduring and timeless truths about human nature and about the common good.
Lawyers cannot create life and did not create marriage. And lawyers (whether on the bench or in politics) have no business redefining either to suit the shifting winds of fashion, or worse, for political expediency.
I know so many single moms who work so hard and do such a great job raising children. We need to applaud every heroic parent working hard to raise good kids regardless of whether or not they are married; just as we need to protect all our children, born and unborn, those lucky enough to have the gift of a married mom and dad and those who do not.
We can do this without cravenly surrendering timeless truths about marriage and human life. We don’t want liberal media-approved lawyers and politicians massaging the meaning of words, or judges implementing vast social changes without the consent of the governed, or, frankly, politicians like President Obama who cannot even tell you what marriage will be next week.
In positions of power, we need men and women of character, willing to stand up and defend what they think is right and to level with the American people. America is hungry for leadership. I have found everywhere I go across this great land that people appreciate it if they know you’re the kind of man they can trust to tell the truth on important issues even if they do not agree with you on every issue.
Marriage is a society’s life blood. Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself. This is an institution which protects our liberty.
A president who, after thousands of years of human history, a Harvard law degree, and four years in the White House, cannot tell us with certainty what he thinks marriage or life is, is not worthy of the trust of the American people or a second term in office. It is time for leadership in America. It is time again to stand for self-evident foundational truths.
- Comment (435)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Well, let's be more precise. When previous generations usually restricted marriage to one man / one woman, was it because they were trying to make a point against homosexuality?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was just taken for granted that marriage was one man / one woman? And why would that be?
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Well, let's be more precise. When previous generations usually restricted marriage to one man / one woman, was it because they were trying to make a point against homosexuality?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was just taken for granted that marriage was one man / one woman? And why would that be? · Jan 14 at 12:53pm
We've been through this one before... most governments had no codified definition of marriage.
Many folks settle on the reason you give above - that it was taken for granted that it was reserved for men and women.
Some of us prefer that government never felt it was their place to define marriage.
From that point of view, the "traditionalism" argument looks better to me.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Crow's Nest: Yes, but you made the "don't make me read all that" comment to Crow's Nest, not Katie, and Crow's Next provided a quote from Polkinghorne.
KC--as always, even if we don't agree on the immediate subject in question, I always appreciate your opinion (and Katie's too! For that matter, while we're on the subject, Tommy's!).
This is what makes Ricochet different, friends: the ability to argue and disagree amiably. · Jan 14 at 12:41pm
Completely agree there. I come to this site to be challenged, and it doesn't fail me.
My brother and I get into the most heated arguments imaginable ... probably because there's no chance that we won't still love each other like brothers after a disagreement. I tend to get most heated with people I trust, because I don't edit my emotions with them.
I don't argue with people I don't respect - won't waste the time.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno We've been through this one before... most governments had no codified definition of marriage.
Many folks settle on the reason you give above - that it was taken for granted that it was reserved for men and women.
Some of us prefer that government never felt it was their place to define marriage.
From that point of view, the "traditionalism" argument looks better to me. · Jan 14 at 12:59pm
Then why do you want one now?
Remember, this is an argument over whether the state should recognize same sex marriages. You're arguing that the state should recognize them. Why, if you think it was a bad idea in the first place?
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Well, it just goes to show you that I can't leave to go out of town for a couple of days without easy access to the Internet without all heck (nod to Molly) breaking loose on the site. Just a couple of observations. Isn't the biggest factor that attacks the institution of marriage something called divorce? In all the discussion about the defense of marriage I've seen little to no comments about how divorce undermines this institution. Is there even a reference to divorce in the Defense of Marriage Act? If the state is so concerned about defending marriage what is it doing to discourage divorce? Anything?
And frankly, it's a bit difficult to stomach being lectured on the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage by Newt Gingrich.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Not to get picky, but I made the request of citation to Katie, and the "don't make me read all that" to Crow's Nest.
Tommy: I know--I totally picked a fight with a contributor who, in the grand scheme, takes a stance I broadly agree with in this argument. Please know I did so with a (not unfriendly) reason.
Some pages back and many many other topics ago, I took the Catholic position under advisement. You see, I belong to that tradition in Western thought that wishes to engage the strongest, most well voiced and thought-out critique on its own ground. More even: I think this is the only way to truly debate, and know this tradition to be a wholly (and holy) honorable one.
In the Western world, if you seriously think through this subject, there are several perspectives that you absolutely cannot help but master if you are serious: The Platonic, I would start with Symposium and Phaedrus; the Catholic: I would start with Casti Connubi and Humana Vitae; and the Lockean, Chapter VII of the Second Treatise.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Well, at least in this case, the Catholic church has been consistent. But at this point, the secular world still laughs at the church for its opposition to divorce. How quaint!
Contemporary society sees marriage as a recognition of how two people feel about each other. But marriage is infinitely more - it's a transition to a different kind of life. Now I also argue that this new life is really a transition to family, and that's why I keep bringing up the children thing. But even if we don't get into the same sex argument, I think we've lost the sense that marriage is a transition to a new way of life.
It isn't a contract. It's a way of life.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Brian Watt: Well, it just goes to show you that I can't leave to go out of town for a couple of days without easy access to the Internet without all heck (nod to Molly) breaking loose on the site. Just a couple of observations. Isn't the biggest factor that attacks the institution of marriage something called divorce? In all the discussion about the defense of marriage I've seen little to no comments about how divorce undermines this institution. Is there even a reference to divorce in the Defense of Marriage Act? If the state is so concerned about defending marriage what is it doing to discourage divorce? Anything?
And frankly, it's a bit difficult to stomach being lectured on the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage by Newt Gingrich. · Jan 14 at 1:11pm
So the proper response to the rising divorce rate is allowing same sex marriage?
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Well, at least in this case, the Catholic church has been consistent. But at this point, the secular world still laughs at the church for its opposition to divorce. How quaint!
All well and good. But at the core of this argument is that the electorate through its elected officials can enact laws to confer more rights and privileges to one set of individuals over another on the pretext of defending marriage while at the same time the same electorate would howl if their rights to divorce were in any way diminished. Whether the Catholic Church has been consistent or not is not really the issue. How the federal and state governments should act and what they should enact is the issue.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Basil Fawlty
Brian Watt: Well, it just goes to show you that I can't leave to go out of town for a couple of days without easy access to the Internet without all heck (nod to Molly) breaking loose on the site. Just a couple of observations. Isn't the biggest factor that attacks the institution of marriage something called divorce? In all the discussion about the defense of marriage I've seen little to no comments about how divorce undermines this institution. Is there even a reference to divorce in the Defense of Marriage Act? If the state is so concerned about defending marriage what is it doing to discourage divorce? Anything?
And frankly, it's a bit difficult to stomach being lectured on the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage by Newt Gingrich. · Jan 14 at 1:11pm
So the proper response to the rising divorce rate is allowing same sex marriage? · Jan 14 at 1:24pm
Not at all. I'm not making that connection. See my reply to KC. Just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy in those who may be so passionate about defending marriage in a country where the divorce rate exceeds 50%.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Well, if the argument here is that we should also support the permanence of a marriage, you're not going to hear any dissent from me.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Crow's Nest: Not to get picky, but I made the request of citation to Katie, and the "don't make me read all that" to Crow's Nest.
Tommy: I know--I totally picked a fight with a contributor who, in the grand scheme, takes a stance I broadly agree with in this argument. Please know I did so with a (not unfriendly) reason.
Some pages back and many many other topics ago, I took the Catholic position under advisement. You see, I belong to that tradition in Western thought that wishes to engage the strongest, most well voiced and thought-out critique on its own ground. More even: I think this is the only way to truly debate, and know this tradition to be a wholly (and holy) honorable one.
In the Western world, if you seriously think through this subject, there are several perspectives that you absolutely cannot help but master if you are serious: The Platonic, I would start with Symposium and Phaedrus; the Catholic: I would start with Casti Connubi and Humana Vitae; and the Lockean, Chapter VII of the Second Treatise. · Jan 14 at 1:11pm
Crow you are a streaming fountain of information!
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno We've been through this one before... most governments had no codified definition of marriage.
Many folks settle on the reason you give above - that it was taken for granted that it was reserved for men and women.
Some of us prefer that government never felt it was their place to define marriage.
From that point of view, the "traditionalism" argument looks better to me. · Jan 14 at 12:59pm
Then why do you want one now?
I don't want a definition of marriage (with so many folks posting I know it is hard to remember who took what stance).
My position is that the government should not be in the marriage business at all. If you are going to have it for some though, then I turn to equal protection concepts.
When it comes to claiming the moniker of "traditionalist," a conservative buzzword, I'm more entitled to it than others, since traditionally the government was not involved in marriage.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Brian Watt
Basil Fawlty
So the proper response to the rising divorce rate is allowing same sex marriage? · Jan 14 at 1:24pm
Not at all. I'm not making that connection. See my reply to KC. Just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy in those who may be so passionate about defending marriage in a country where the divorce rate exceeds 50%. · Jan 14 at 1:38pm
Fair enough. I thought you were implying that it's incumbent on lawmakers to solve the problem of divorce before they can address the problem of same sex marriage.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Basil Fawlty
Fair enough. I thought you were implying that it's incumbent on lawmakers to solve the problem of divorce before they can address the problem of same sex marriage. · Jan 14 at 1:54pm
Nope. But that said we may be asking lawmakers to do too much to rebuild the foundations of civil society that have been eaten away by popular culture and the failure of organized religions to keep marriages intact.
I think it could also be argued that the state should engage in as little social activism as possible including giving benefits or extra rights to one class of citizens over other classes of citizens. Some would argue that by not conferring these rights and privileges the cohesive bonds that hold our civil society would disintegrate. That may or may not be true, but it seems that the state is being looked to, to provide that necessary cohesion because other aspects of the culture have failed to do so or have diminished the value of marriage and the family for at least the last one hundred years.
And given who some of the lawmakers are, it's always a dicey proposition to have them legislate morality.
Dec '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
What of Coverture? We changed marriage to rid ourselves of it. That being the case, we must admit it is OK to break with tradition to change things for the better.
My point being, while we will disagree on whether a proposed change will be better or worse, the inquiry is in no way decided by an appeal to history (seeing how much we changed it already).
Just skipped right over that "conserve what is good" part, didja'? Do you have a problem with gender complementarity in marriage? Everyone has the same right to marriage, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex. That just rankles, does it?
Yes, mustn't let the dead teach us anything. We're new people! Much more enlightened, socially responsible, and moral than anyone in the past.
I'll bet you're a really good lawyer, Tommy. You shift the terms of the debate to better suit your position.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Welcome to Ricochet, Sen. Santorum! What a thrill to have you on board!!
If anyone (say, Peter or Rob) helped persuade you to join us, hats off and thanks to him or her or them!!!!
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
When it comes to claiming the moniker of "traditionalist," a conservative buzzword, I'm more entitled to it than others, since traditionally the government was not involved in marriage.
Hardly.
Before the state started getting involved, marriages were handled mostly by churches (or synagogues, temples, and so on). You're arguing that society never had any position on gay marriage, and for proof, you're citing the law. But society is more than the law, and society expressed its approval or disapproval through other means than simply elected officials.
The fact that the civil government didn't get much involved doesn't support the argument that society didn't have an opinion. Overwhelmingly, society opposed gay marriage, but they didn't enforce it through marriage case law.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Western Chauvinist
Do you have a problem with gender complementarity in marriage? Everyone has the same right to marriage, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex.
Not very courageous coming from someone who prefers having sex with the opposite sex.
What I love about the Union side in the Civil War, and white people in particular, is that they fought for the rights of people who were not like themselves. If they won, there was nothing directly in it for them. In fact, they fought and died for a result that would reduce their own poltical power. If that happened at any other time in the history of the world, I'm not aware of it.
I liked Martin Luther King, Jr., but he fought for people like himself. Important, but it pales in comparison to the human compassion offered by the Union soldier.
You, my friend, are MLK Jr in this debate. Fighting for those like yourself.
I'm but a lowly Union soldier, fighting for those not like me.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
KC Mulville
[T]raditionally the government was not involved in marriage.
There's a very good reason why all societies (up until our contemporary one) have determined that we cannot encourage on a regular basis something like sodomy or pederasty. Not even in ancient Greece did they do this. It doesn’t mean one can’t have varying degrees of acceptance of it. You can have polite society where people know who is queer and who isn’t, etc. and not proceed beyond that, toward either outright acceptance or gay bashing.
But libertarians and liberals today wants to live with that.
For your argument for SSM (ie., the radical privatization of marriage) to make any sort of sense, you would have to argue that homosexuality is either benign or that it fits into some sort of hierarchy: that it is a higher life than some other way of life, meaning that it’s at least benign. This is not regarding the behavior, but rather the public acknowledgement of the thing as at least only benign. And publicly benign. The whole issue here is the public. What is public? There is simply no way to get around this.