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:
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Thank you, Senator, for being brave enough to wade into our squabbles; this is a hot topic here on Ricochet. I disagree with your argument in almost every particular, but I respect your reasoning and your willingness to engage in this debate.
And thank you for your commitment to the unborn.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Thank you, Senator, for your well reasoned post.
Some people are afraid to talk about social issues because they fear conservative positions are irrational, purely based on religous sentiment, or knee jerk reactions. What you have shown in your campaign is that social conservatives are reasoanble and that our positions are well thought out and important in comparison to fiscal issues.
Personally, I don't care if our debt and unemployment are reduced to zero if we're still murduring millions of babies. Even if a ship is sound, sturdy and decorated with gold filigree, if it's pointed in the wrong direction, it's not one I want to be on.
I'm glad to see a major candidate voice these issues, on national TV, in print, but especially on Ricochet :). I don't know if we've ever had a presidential candidate post here, it's pretty exciting.
Thanks again,
SG
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Like Rupert Murdoch? Mitch Daniels? Haley Barbour?
I hold out hope that Santorum will return to Ricochet to respond to comments. But those "rules" are obviously more like guidelines.
Considering Ricochet is linked to National Review, one of the nation's most popular Right-leaning publications, you would think the candidates would see the benefit of interacting here... here, where they are never put on the spot and can share more than soundbites, unlike in traditional interviews and TV debates.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 1:18amJun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
2. No unions from which no new life will emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life.
Aug '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
We'll be joined by Rep. James Clyburn in five minutes..... Or as the joke used to go: " Missiles launched from Moscow, news at eleven ." Failing that - who has assumed the Kenneth mantle ?
Re: We Hold These Truths
I too thank the Senator for his very important pro-life positions.
I often wonder why it is called a "Conservative" position (which it is) to the exclusion of "Liberal."
Liberalism in the classical sense denotes a commitment to laissez faire in economics and an understanding of leaving the populace unmolested by government.
With that as the back drop, how in the world did killing innocent humans become associated with the word "Liberal?"
How did we let the "left" co-opt the word "Liberal?"
Dec '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Senator, with sincere respect, do you really? Do you hold those truths to be self evident? Are we all created equally? If you believe that, in what sense do you believe that the federal government also has a role in these areas?
I anticipate that you might reference the previous roles the federal government has asserted and, thus, a need for some remedy.
Why not focus on the issue of getting the federal government out of our lives?
The "values" focus that is attractve in retail politics is divisive and inappropriate. It makes explicit that we are not, at all, equal, and that we need our paternalistic federal government to sort these issues out for us, instead of extricating us from the mess that the federal government created in the first place.
When your campaign heads south in two weeks, to Florida, the hill you are defending will be a valley. Amongst my family and friends, we may disagree on the particulars, but could unite on one aspect: It's none of Washington's business.
If you chose to defend married couples and their children from slavery to debt, that might be more pertinent.
Sir.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Ed G.
No; the assumptions are that:
-Marriage has always been a union between men and women
-The formal civil institution exists to promote and encourage a particular union because "We depend upon heterosexual marriage (these unions) 'to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.'"
-same sex unions neither conform to the current understanding nor do they serve the purpose described above
Therefore, same sex unions do not qualify for the civil institution. It's not necessary to show how same sex unions harm the current understanding or purpose described above; it's sufficient merely to demonstrate that they don't serve the purpose.
You argument is as follows:
1. Gay unions are unions that cannot "make new life" and "connect those new lives to their mom and dad".
2. No unions that cannot "make new life" and "connect those new lives to their mom and dad" are unions that qualify for legal recognition, i.e., marriage status
3. No gay unions are unions that qualify for legal recognition.
Tell me if is is an inaccurate attempt at logically reconstructing your argument.
If its accurate, then what is the justification behind premise #2
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 1:36amRe: We Hold These Truths
Samwise Gamgee
Michael Labeit
2. No unions from which no new life will emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life. · Jan 13 at 4:22pm
What if for medical reasons my wife can not bear me children? Shall I be rid of her (meaning you favor infertility as a cause of action for divorce), and if not, do you concede then that marriage is something beyond just child bearing?
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit: .....
What's the justification behind this last proposition. Why maintain this assumption, especially in cases of sterility, when non-procreation is assured, when, as you say, you believe that procreation is of central importance when determining what unions the state should recognize ..... Suppose a couple voluntarily discloses their sterility or unwillingness to procreate. Here you clearly have a union from which no new life will emerge.
I want to recognize a societal good, I don't want to create some intrusive government branch authorized to inspect natal progress and impose penalties and sort out failure from fraud. Even asking the question implies consequences for lying or failure after trying, and that implies enforcement. Such an arrangement would not be desirable and would counteract the good. same sex unions don't require declarations, testing, or enforcement - it's evidently impossible to begin with.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Senator, I am with you all the way on these issues. If I could swing it practically, I'd be in South Carolina this week helping your campaign.
I already have a sweater vest coming my way.
But I thought Ann Coulter made a good point about rhetoric in the Ricochet podcast today. When the inevitable questions comes up: Can a state ban birth control or do people have a Constitutional right to privacy? the best answer is probably: "Voters in any given state can ban aspirin, they can ban bowling, they can ban alcohol or dancing, if they're into that. They are free to make good laws and bad laws if a majority of their citizens want them. There are a few enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government and birth control regulation, one way or the other, isn't among them."
That way it's framed as a 10th amendment issue rather than a "Catholic moral teaching" issue that has an unfortunate tendency to freak a lot of people out unnecessarily.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 2:44amMay '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Samwise Gamgee
Michael Labeit
2. No unions from which no new life will emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life.
Suppose that change is made to my attempt at logically reconstructing Diane's argument. Then it would read as follows:
1. Gay unions are unions from which no new life can emerge ("...as dictated by the forces of nature, no new life will emerge from this relationship").
2. No unions from which no new life can emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state.
3. No gay unions are unions that should be recognized by the state ("It doesn't make sense for the state to afford it any benefits").
The difference is, now premise #2 permits its subscribers to support heterosexual marriages where couples are merely unwilling to have children, but it still requires them to oppose heterosexual marriages where couples cannot (e.g., sterility, old age, etc.).
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Samwise Gamgee
Michael Labeit
2. No unions from which no new life will emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life. · Jan 13 at 4:22pm
What if for medical reasons my wife can not bear me children? Shall I be rid of her (meaning you favor infertility as a cause of action for divorce), and if not, do you concede then that marriage is something beyond just child bearing? · Jan 13 at 4:29pm
Here we go again.
Marriage is about something more than childbearing. Infertility doesn't affect the ability of a man and woman to enter the institution, accept its duties and enjoy its benefits.
Re: We Hold These Truths
katievs
Tommy De Seno
Samwise Gamgee
Michael Labeit
2. No unions from which no new life will emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life. · Jan 13 at 4:22pm
What if for medical reasons my wife can not bear me children? Shall I be rid of her (meaning you favor infertility as a cause of action for divorce), and if not, do you concede then that marriage is something beyond just child bearing? · Jan 13 at 4:29pm
Here we go again.
Marriage is about something more than childbearing. Infertility doesn't affect the ability of a man and woman to enter the institution, accept its duties and enjoy its benefits. · Jan 13 at 4:37pm
Not to quote President Clinton, but define what "is" is.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
However, premise 2nd does in fact require its adherents to oppose non-procreative heterosexual marriages.
The statement applies to the class of relationships taken as a whole. A union of one man and one woman is the only type of relationship that can produce children. Not does, but can. This sets it apart from all other types of relationships.
Just because some individual heterosexual unions do not produce any children does not negate the fact that they are engaged in the only type of union that can produce children. Even a sterile heterosexual couple participates in this unique type of union.
1. Same-sex unions are a type of union from which no new life can emerge.
2. No type of union from which no new life can possibly emerge should be recognized by the state.
3. Same sex unions should not be recognized by the state.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
1. Gay unions are unions from which no new life can emerge ("...as dictated by the forces of nature, no new life will emerge from this relationship").
2. No unions from which no new life can emerge are unions that should be recognized by the state.
3. No gay unions are unions that should be recognized by the state ("It doesn't make sense for the state to afford it any benefits").
Rather, marriage is about the joining of the two halves of the human whole in a union of love and fidelity.
This kind of union usually, but not always, engenders children. It is the "natural cradle" of new human life.
Even when it doesn't engender children, it serves society by witnessing that human sexuality is rightly ordered toward family life and community.
To abolish sexual complementarity as a norm in marriage is to render it meaningless: no more than a contract between consenting adults.
Jul '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Anon brings up the very valid point of personhood. By some folks reckoning, I'm an accomplice to murder because of all the birth control pills I've prescribed. By my reckoning, I'm helping to prevent the chance of a woman deciding to terminate a life from an unwanted pregnancy. Very few people could realize the personal agony of telling a young obese woman she is 5 months pregnant, advocating for adoption and having her walk out of the office to call the abortion doctor. I wish that experience on no person who opposes infanticide yet due to some peoples definition of personhood I am guilty of that act. A fact I have to refute to maintain sanity.
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
You argument is as follows:
1. Gay unions are unions that cannot "make new life" and "connect those new lives to their mom and dad".
2. No unions that cannot "make new life" and "connect those new lives to their mom and dad" are unions that qualify for legal recognition, i.e., marriage status
3. No gay unions are unions that qualify for legal recognition.
Tell me if is is an inaccurate attempt at logically reconstructing your argument.
If so, then what is the justification behind premise #2
I'm sincerely baffled by your question. If the purpose of marriage is to promote and encourage the unique relationship capable of making new life and taking responsibility for that life, then isn't it a given that we're not obligated to recognize a relationship which doesn't serve that purpose?
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
katievs
Tommy De Seno
Samwise Gamgee
Michael Labeit
It's not that new life "will/won't" emerge from same sex "unions" - it's that new life "can't" emerge from same sex unions. In the same way "lawyers can not create life" as the Senator said :), neither can a homosexual "union" create life.
Here we go again.
Marriage is about something more than childbearing. Infertility doesn't affect the ability of a man and woman to enter the institution, accept its duties and enjoy its benefits.
Do you disagree then with Samwise? He stressed the point that gay couples cannot yield new life. This is true for physiological reasons. Now, infertile couples too cannot yield new life. This is also true for physiological reasons. Now, gay marriage opponents tend to emphasize this physiological inability of gay couples, thus I take it that those who do emphasize it view it as relevant, i.e., as affecting whether a couple's union should be given legal recognition. It sounds as if you believe the procreative abilities of a couple should not have any bearing upon whether or not their union is worthy of legal recognition. Am I correct?
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Marriage is about kids — period. Throughout human history, in cultures across the world, there was this antiquated idea of consummation. A marriage was not consummated until the couple slept together and begat a child. Marriage is more than that, of course, but that is where it begins.
These days, people think marriage is about feelings, as if life is a fairy tale in which everyone "falls in love" with a "soulmate" and lives happily ever after. This is a modern notion which has emerged since the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of the middle class. In other words, marriage based on affection is a luxury. There's a reason marriage rituals used to involve an exchange of money, property and alliances.
Marriage produces the next generation and unites two families into a larger, more secure social unit. It's not about just two people. It's about many people. It is for many people.
Move in with and have sex with whoever you want. That's not a marriage. Marriage is about kids.
Sterile? Keep trying and pray for a miracle (like Abraham). Or adopt. That's harsh. Life is harsh. Social rituals exist for the norms, not the exceptions.