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:
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Well, he has this, you know, Presidential campaign going on. And these undead gay marriage threads last forever. So at some point, he should jump in and respond to a few of the points, but honestly, these threads have gotten so deep and involved with so many points and counter-points that I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a couple of hours to just sit and reply point by point. If his choice is between a meet-and-greet with voters before the South Carolina primary, and spending hours replying to all 30 of Tommy De Sano's posts on homosexual marriage... he's probably going to consider the former a more important use of precious time right now.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Re: Senator Santorum's non-engagement...aren't there conditions by the Ricochet editorial board that guest contributors must at least respond to a few of the member's comments or are politicians running for office permitted to use the site as merely an advertising vehicle for campaign propaganda? Perhaps Ricochet should charge the Santorum campaign for this posting. Just saying.
Sep '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
For what it's worth, Douglas, I agree with you on both points: that gays want acceptance (even vindication) and that (what I call) the yuck factor underlies much of the aversion that many folks have. (No editorial comment intended.)
Douglas Kimball: The gay marriage debate is a plea for acceptance and even vindication for the gay community. But beneath the debate is the topic of sex, and with it an equivocation of coitus with sodomy, as if both serve the same purpose. But just as marriage has its historical, societal history, gay unions do not. The reason is simple – sodomy has historically been considered a perversion, even criminal, often punishable by death. It was (and still is in many places) a criminal offense. So much as we love our gay brothers and want them to find happiness, heterosexuals are ill equipped to accept sodomy as a consummate act. Perhaps this is an innate aversion, but it underlies the debate. · Jan 15 at 10:18am
Nov '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Welcome, Senator!
Sep '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
I think you're overlooking the potential benefit to Ricochet of a 425 comment thread on the weekend that causes sticky eyeballs by members and no elbow grease required by a contribu-editor.
I'd say its win-win.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Leslie Watkins: Joseph, I just don't see how you can say Jim Crow ended peacefully. It ended because government clamped down—hard—long after many decades of abject discrimination and bigotry that led to deaths and, in truth, terrorism. It wasn't the people wanting to be free who caused this. It was the people who refused to view the public sphere as including everyone.
Joseph Eagar: That's actually a good analogy. Jim Crow still ended, but it ended peacefully. Gay marriage should be legalized in a way that makes sense, that doesn't burn the town down, so to speak. · Jan 15 at 12:24am
Edited on Jan 15 at 12:25 am
Jan 15 at 8:18am
You have a point, I wasn't sure how best to put that. Obviously, the South didn't burn to the ground, but I suppose the word peaceful might be wrong too.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Eagar
Oh come on. The equality argument is nothing more than "it doesn't matter if it's nihilistic--we have to do it anyway!" or "human rights trumps solving social breakdown!" You do not win arguments by saying "well, if society collapses and we all go to hell, it's OK, since at least we would have respected peoples' human rights."
It's much better to say "Okay, that version might be bad, what about this version? What if we did this? That might reduce negative effects on society." I keep saying this, but it's important that libertarians understand: Gay people don't want a broken nihilized social institution. Why would we want gay marriage if the act of getting itdestroyed it?
There are reasons why many gay people don't want marriage rights at all, you know. · Jan 15 at 12:19am
I agree that homosexuals are not a politically monolithic group. But your theories treat them as such. · Jan 15 at 5:28am
I think we all do that sometimes. You are correct about that. I'll try harder to use "socially conservative gays" in the future.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Pseudodionysius
I think you're overlooking the potential benefit to Ricochet of a 425 comment thread on the weekend that causes sticky eyeballs by members and no elbow grease required by a contribu-editor.
I'd say its win-win. · Jan 15 at 4:06pm
Yes, a robust discussion no doubt...and it served to display that there are some diverse views on the topic in the Ricochet community. But think how much more fascinating had the good Senator decided to actually respond to any of the comments rather than simply using Ricochet as a campaign advertisement. Perhaps the other candidates, if permitted the same opportunity, will have more of a willingness to engage. Think for example what fun we could have if Congressman Paul decided to respond to our comments. :-)
Re: We Hold These Truths
Having read through 427 comments on this thread, I just want to thank the commenters for all the work they put into these discussions. I learn so much.
Somewhere 10 pages ago a lightbulb went off when one of you made a point about gender and the complementary nature of male and female. I'm off to reread Harvey Mansfield's Manliness and would love any other recommendations to help me.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Leslie Watkins: (what I call) the yuck factor underlies much of the aversion that many folks have. (No editorial comment intended.)
Douglas Kimball: Perhaps this is an innate aversion, but it underlies the debate.
Fresh milk tastes good, but when it goes sour it tastes and smells "yucky." When food spoils it goes from healthy and nutritious to dangerous and potentially deadly to ingest. Our brains are finely tuned to interpret subtle clues from our senses as "yucky" in order to warn us against courses of action that might not be safe or healthy.
At least in some cases innate aversions are there for a reason and it may be unwise to take them too lightly.
Edited on January 16, 2012 at 5:48amDec '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Douglas
Well, he has this, you know, Presidential campaign going on. And these undead gay marriage threads last forever... but honestly, these threads have gotten so deep and involved with so many points and counter-points that I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a couple of hours to just sit and reply point by point. If his choice is between a meet-and-greet with voters before the South Carolina primary, and spending hours replying to all 30 of Tommy De Sano's posts on homosexual marriage... he's probably going to consider the former a more important use of precious time right now. · Jan 15 at 12:20pm
Douglas, I am amazed. You did not make a comment like some self absorbed 12 year old expecting a Presidential Candidate to take time out of his busy schedule to take him to the ball game and be his pal. This Presidential Candidate is such a good guy, he just might do it. I'd advise him not to. That's just me.
Edited on January 16, 2012 at 5:54amJun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
But to record a mortgage, doesn't the government still need a legal definition of the term "mortgage?" For instance in 24 C.F.R. § 3500.2:
It goes on and on like that for pages.
My point is: even if government records marriages instead of licensing them, don't we need a legal definition of "marriage" either way? And won't we still have the same argument over what that definition should be?
Re: We Hold These Truths
Leslie Watkins: For what it's worth, Douglas, I agree with you on both points: that gays want acceptance (even vindication) and that (what I call) the yuck factor underlies much of the aversion that many folks have. (No editorial comment intended.)
A touchy subject, bound to hurt some feelings, but I think you are correct in this assessment.
Apr '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
I would also add validation as I think that may be the number one reason for demanding it be called marriage, and not accepting civil unions and the like. What they fail to see is that society will find another way to define the 'one man-one woman' relationship as this lies at the core of civilization. Therefore, we'll keep having this debate in some form or another.
Feb '12
Re: We Hold These Truths
At this point, President Obama believes marriage is whatever Michelle says it is, if he knows what's good for him.