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:
Apr '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Modern marriage to me seems to be build upon two general foundations, love and exclusivity. That is to say the primary motivations for two to partake in marriage is that they love each other, and wish to publicly make this love exclusive. The desire or ability to make children is not necessary in the decision process. Pretending like people only wish to marry to have children seems silly. They marry because they wish to publicly expresses exclusive love.
Isn't this the primary reason Gay and Lesbian couples want Gay marriage legalized. To allow for a formal expression of their love for their partners to be public. Any thing less than marriage is a rebuke of their love by society. That may be what people wish to do, but if that is the case they should just say it and stop dragging children into the debate.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
NP, why would they want to say "this female is mine"? Sexual possession? Wasn't it more likely the desire to form a family. You know, where the father could be assured the children were his own.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: Marriage is a natural institution, but it is a natural institution precisely because it is rooted in, and built around, the different but complementary differences between men and women.
No, marriage is a "natural institution" based upon sexual jealousy...
It's been evident to ordinary people throughout human history that men and women differ by nature in certain striking ways not limited to anatomy and hence should be taught different virtues -- for the sake not merely of "peace within the community" but for the sake of what's beyond mere life or necessity: happiness or flourishing.
It is just as evident that those virtues complement each other and so marriage comes to sight as the institution through which men and women, in pairs, find their natural flourishing and happiness. Not surprisingly, traditional marriage also appears to be the naturally best means for the raising of children.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 6:18amRe: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
That was intended as humor, not snark, given how contentious this issue is and to indicate that I do not treat you as someone at my beck and call, always ready to give me a prompt answer or response whenever I ask for one. · Jan 13 at 7:27pm
Thanks for clarifying, Michael. I appreciate that.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno:
How did we let the "left" co-opt the word "Liberal?" · Jan 13 at 4:25pm
It's because of FDR via John Dewey. Tiffany Jones Miller explains in her recent NRO article:
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Where in this discussion has anyone claimed that "people only wish to marry to have children?" Who is pretending that?
I would however observe that the desire to engage in the act of procreation generally plays a role in the decision to marry. The technology to sever the act of procreation from its natural consequences, and the moral acceptance of the indiscriminate use of that technology, was the first big step down the road to where we are today, but that is a whole other debate.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
I want to thank Mr. Santorum for being the first public official I've ever seen articulate -- in front of an unfriendly audience to boot -- what has always struck me as obvious about the Gay marriage business, indeed the whole business of "sexual orientation", and that is that there are not two, or three, or even six different "orientations", but many, some of which are clearly repugnant to all decent people of any creed, such as pedophilia and necrophilia, etc.
Why is this important? There seems to be this notion that if one simply injects a word into a discussion it changes the possible range of opinion about it. "Orientation" is a deliberately amoral noun; it carries the suggestion that because sexual preference is "mere" orientation it has about the same moral content as one's favourite ice cream flavour.
But one does not create -- or nullify -- truth simply by attaching labels.
Among such "orientations" there are varying moral nuances, and there is an inertia associated with any adjustment in public policy concerning such matters. Just one point of data, for example: Obama's appointment of a homosexual activist who also promotes boy-man "encounters" as Dep. Asst. Sec. Education.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Nobody's Perfect: "Excuse me, is that your Bible?"
"Why yes, yes it is."
"Would you mind getting it off of my Constitution?" · Jan 13 at 3:38pm
Oh, excuse me? Did Sen. Santorum reference the Bible? I missed that part...
In fact, I see nothing in his argument that runs counter to a single word of the Constitution. · Jan 13 at 3:48pm
Edited on Jan 13 at 03:48 pm
That was as close to what I'd describe as a troll post as anything I've ever seen on Ricochet.
Jul '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Stanko, you asked me when personhood begins. Such an impossible question to answer unless you say it begins at conception or you are one of the deluded who believes it occurs after birth. A solid 1/3 or more of fertilizations are spontaneously aborted by around 8 weeks or so and I have seen these little life forms and comforted the families. They probably would not be defined as persons due to thought process development in the cerebral cortex. Whether the names of the fertilized humans are written in the book of lambs I do not know either. I do know at some point this life form has a soul and rights. Perhaps it is at 12 weeks but anybody who says it is at conception perfectly entitled to that opinion. I accept your right to believe and feel that with all your heart and soul. My answer is that I do not know.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 10:43amJul '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Katievs, I will digest that story at a later time and send you a PM. I admire your conviction and clarity even though I may never be in that place regarding some of these difficult issues.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Because of the time zone difference, I awoke this morning to find that Sen. Santorum had posted on marriage, and the thread had some 200 responses.
At so many posts, I'm not going to join the argument here.
But I will say, Sen. Santorum: thanks very much for stopping by and taking notice of, and part in, our conversation here on Ricochet.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Okay, one addendum to what I said in #211:
I’m heartened to see the emphasis that marriage advocates (on both sides) have made on this thread about the numerous social goods that the institution serves, and the fact that the regime (note: not just “the State”) does have a broader interest in the social and sexual lives of its members (this does not mean it must legislate on these matters, just that they are important facets of the life of the community and it cannot avoid taking notice of them) then ONLY in cases where procreation is involved.
As others have noted, this was always implicit in this argument, and has been explicitly made on other threads devoted to marriage that did not broach the question of gay marriage, but it is necessary to recall them in this context.
I would also note, while on the subject, that because the regime cannot help but take notice, via public law, civic associations, religious affiliations, and other intermediary institutions, that it also cannot help but affect the character of the citizenry via laws and mores formal and informal, via their presence, content, or absence. That is the nature of political life.
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Eagar
Michael Labeit
I
Abortion activists like to point out that there aren't enough willing parents for adoption to be a viable alternative to abortion, but perhaps there could be. · Jan 13 at 6:23pm
Reading though more than 200 comments early Saturday morning, I might miss something, but I wanted to respond to this comment, Joseph Eager. Abortion activists might like to point that out, but it simply isn't true. There are thousands upon thousands of willing and eager adoptive parents, but because of a variety of factors, one being that many babies are aborted who might be adopted, one being that the state can make adoption very difficult, many of them go overseas or wait hopefully for many years before being able to adopt, if ever.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
I too have awakened to find myself at the end of a rather long queue. I'd like to thank the Senator for his post. I'd also like to thank Dianne for her post at #20, which is as concise a formulation of this issue as I've read.
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: "Excuse me, is that your Bible?"
"Why yes, yes it is."
"Would you mind getting it off of my Constitution?" · Jan 13 at 3:38pn
I used to think that "get your rosaries off my ovaries" was the height of wit. This is so much cleverer.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
As much as I appreciate the Senator's contribution, I already spent a weekend following this debate a few weeks ago in the records breaking conversation on the same. Nonetheless, in honor of my brother, I'll give my 2 cents.
It is in the spirit of the debate that I declare my one conviction on the issue, that it be resolved at the ballot box rather than the courts. Let the debate take place, and not just behind firewalls of center-right memberships.
My baby brother is gay and I have talked with him on the issue. Among other things, I told him I believed that for so many, gay marriage is a bitter pill to swallow for the simple reason that its going to force homosexuality into a conversation with children far earlier than would otherwise be expected.
I know its a slippery slope, but I ultimately wish for my brother, were he to find himself in a committed and loving relationship, the same protections legal recognition our other brother and I receive in regards to the loves of our lives.
That doesn't hold water in an intellectual debate, but it does in an emotional one.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
One norm of marriage is monogamy, another fidelity. These are norms because of the procreative aspect of heterosexual unions.
Preposterous. Monogamy and fidelity exist "because" of procreation? Talk about things that don't follow!
A man's innate desire to spread his seed and a woman's desire to bear children are curbed because of mutual agreements between two people to curb them. Not caused by them.
Sex was around long before monogamy, fidelity and marraige.
When I see an exceedingly beautiful woman, I can't shut off inside my system that natural and wonderful gift God gave me that makes me want to perform the action that leads to procreation, with procreation not being my goal at all at that moment.
I stifle that feeling because my promise of fidelity to my wife. It does not exist because of my promise of fidelity to my wife.
Interesting note: Funny how marriage statists who wish to have government laws of marriage have "coincidentally" settled on laws which leave them marrying exactly the person they want to have sex with.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 2:46pmDec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
I disagree with the idea that social conservatives turn off independents. The actual winning electoral candidate is a socially conservative fiscal liberal that isnt drunk/insane.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Eagar
The whole issue is complicated, but basically boils down to how SSM is legalized. As I've said before, I oppose gay marriage if legalized via the courts, Congress, or state legislatures, but I support it being legalized by state popular referendum, on the theory that popular referendums can't be hijacked by anti-family leftists the way court decisions (and even legislation) can.
Athenian Democracy. Shall we vote on what we will allow Black people to do while we are at it? How generous of you to offer a majority vote to people you outnumber more than 95 to 5. What political courage you have!
This is a Constitutional Republic. Some votes we don't take, so long as hold the self-evident truths that we are all created equal and that our rights endowed by God are unalienable.
If not, then let's make war on each other to settle our rights.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Eagar
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Not at all. See, this is why you should read some of the marriage comment threads. One norm of marriage is monogamy, another fidelity. These are norms because of the procreative aspect of heterosexual unions. If marriage is redefined as something entirely different that involves same-sex couples or other groupings, those norms lose much, most or all of their rational basis. Just ask one of same-sex marriage's biggest proponents (original anti-monogamy piece in the New York Times is here).
And certainly if you think losing the rational basis for monogamy is a good thing for society, then society won't fall apart. · Jan 13 at 6:07pm
Monogamous norms are vital to society. There is a small minority of couples who benefit from "open marriages," but the vast majority cannot emotionally deal with it. Few people can live without monogamous norms, which is why maintaining them is so important. · Jan 13 at 6:12pm
Edited on Jan 13 at 06:13 pm
If what you say is true, monogamy will exist naturally wihout government help.