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:
Re: We Hold These Truths
katievs
Those were bad laws, because they discriminated in things that were inessential to the nature of marriage.
But the argument for them was that to allow such marriages would cheapen the institution and threaten the existence of society, exactly the argument (excuse, pretext) used by Senator Santorum.
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
Ed G.
.....
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?
That isn't the only purpose of marriage. As I've stated in previous threads, "According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office" there are "1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples".
No, those 1,138 benefits aren't the purpose of marriage. They constitute the promotion and encouragement. What do we promote and encourage via these 1,138 benefits? Unions that create new life in which the biological parents take responsibility. Why do we promote and encourage such a union? Because such unions are generally the best case for society (and the new lives too).
Dec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
So a man who remains unmarried will eventually develop a tendency toward "promiscuity, rape, adultery, pornography, prostitution, venereal diseases?"
Personally, when I was single, I just hung around video peep stores, but, then, I'm sorta shy.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
If the lone government interest in marriage is child bearing, the government then has no interest in the infertile marrying.
Tommy, we've said again and again that it's not the only good of marriage. There's also the union of the two sexes; there's the social good of fidelity and permanence, and so on.
Re: We Hold These Truths
katievs
Tommy De Seno
If the lone government interest in marriage is child bearing, the government then has no interest in the infertile marrying.
Tommy, we've said again and again that it's not the only good of marriage. There's also the union of the two sexes; there's the social good of fidelity and permanence, and so on. · Jan 13 at 5:24pm
Does the State have an interest in promoting those things?
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Stanko
Michael Labeit
Say what? Sterile heterosexual couples cannot be taxonomized as belonging to the group of couples that can produce children.
And therein lies the root of our disagreement: you are taxonomizing couples, I am taxonomizing relationships.
What does this have to do with relationships? Do you agree or disagree with my reductio ad absurdum in comment #69:
1. Sterile heterosexual unions are a type of union from which no new life can possibly emerge (obviously)
2. "No type of union from which no new life can possibly emerge should be recognized by the state." (your premise)
3. No sterile heterosexual unions should be recognized by the state. (logical inference)
Are any of the premises false? Is the reasoning invalid? If "No" to both, then you believe, by implication, in the conclusion.
Dec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
But the argument for them was that to allow such marriages would cheapen the institution and threaten the existence of society, exactly the argument (excuse, pretext) used by Senator Santorum.
Tommy, if I wasn't hopelessly heterosexual, I'd kiss you.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
katievs
Those were bad laws, because they discriminated in things that were inessential to the nature of marriage.
But the argument for them was that to allow such marriages would cheapen the institution and threaten the existence of society, exactly the argument (excuse, pretext) used by Senator Santorum. · Jan 13 at 5:23pm
The fact that the same arguments were used wrongly in that case doesn't mean that they aren't being used rightly in this case.
Dec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy, we've said again and again that it's not the only good of marriage. There's also the union of the two sexes; there's the social good of fidelity and permanence, and so on
So, if you believe in the value of fidelity and permanence...you should celebrate it when gays marry. And so on..
May '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Isn't there a significant difference between a relationship that may be incidentally infertile and one that is definitionally so?
ultra vires: Mr. Santorum you speak as is marriage if some entity not to be tinkered with by the state, does this mean you would want to get the government out of recognizing any and all marriages? If not, then why not allow same sex couples to marry? I certainly hope the reason is not because they cannot procreate, because neither can some heterosexual couples. · Jan 13 at 2:34pm
Edited on Jan 13 at 02:34 pm
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Stanko
Michael Labeit
Say what? Sterile heterosexual couples cannot be taxonomized as belonging to the group of couples that can produce children.
And therein lies the root of our disagreement: you are taxonomizing couples, I am taxonomizing relationships.
Consider the following list:
The first relationship belongs in a different group than the others for several reasons, including: it is exclusive, permanent, and procreative.
A "husband and wife" relationship is per se procreative? The first relationship may be procreative, that is, modally, the relation of terms is possible, not necessary (e.g., "must"). But of what relevance is this? How does this tackle the "problem" of sterile heterosexual couples, relationships, etc?
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
katievs
Tommy De Seno
Dare I ask...what is a "destructive sexual impulse?" · Jan 13 at 5:15pm
I mean there that set loose from boundaries, the sexual impulse tends toward destruction. Think promiscuity, rape, adultery, pornography, prostitution, venereal diseases, etc.
Do you deny this? · Jan 13 at 5:18pm
So a man who remains unmarried will eventually develop a tendency toward "promiscuity, rape, adultery, pornography, prostitution, venereal diseases?"
"Tends toward" are your words. I pray you didn't mean it.
I'm speaking of a general tendency, not a universal tendency.
If you don't tend your farm, it goes to seed. If you don't exercise your muscles, they will atrophy. If you don't watch what you eat, you'll get fat. If you don't channel your sexual urges toward good ends, they're likely to lead to regrets.
Of course there will be individual exceptions.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Sometimes, when I read a comment thread such as this, I wonder if people understand how babies are made.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect:
Those who oppose gay marriage tend to do so from a "moral" - meaning religious - basis, while those who support it do so from a standpoint of equal rights under the Constitution.
There may be secularists or atheists who oppose gay marriage, but I've never met one. · Jan 13 at 5:00pm
Wait, are you equating moral with religious here? Tread carefully, this tends to upset secularists and atheists who insist they can be just as moral without religion.
Are you denying that there can be a non-religious foundation for moral claims? For instance, if I claim that confiscatory rates of taxation are immoral, is that inherently a religious claim? It's certainly not a Constitutional claim, as the 16th Amendment clearly grants Congress the power to tax incomes and does not set any upper limits on rates.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: Tommy, we've said again and again that it's not the only good of marriage. There's also the union of the two sexes; there's the social good of fidelity and permanence, and so on
So, if you believe in the value of fidelity and permanence...you should celebrate it when gays marry. And so on.. · Jan 13 at 5:29pm
Gays can't marry without also at the same time abolishing the norm of marriage, which would be an evil that far outweighs the good done by their private vows.
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: There was a time when I despised the gay rights movement. I hated their attitudes, their rhetoric, their theater, their politics. When they started demanding the right to marry, I was reflexively opposed, just like most people here.
But there was one little problem; I simply could not get past the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
.....
NP, I really think you need to read the many SSM threads more closely. There's very little that's "reflexive" about them. The whole thing turns on what marriage is for, and I don't mean the personal or sacramental aspects of marriage. I mean the formal civil institution that carries with it legal consequences. Why does it exist? What function does it serve? If, like Tommy, you think it serves no function then I can understand how you'd think that that there's no basis for exclusions or distinctions. Would you agree that if it served a societal purpose then exclusions and distinctions are then justified?
Aug '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Goldgeller
Can't the state recognize "civil unions?" It seems this way we have accurately defined marriage and still allowing people to enjoy broad freedom. · Jan 13 at 5:00pm
I don't understand the purpose of a "civil union." As far as I'm concerned, the state can recognize them if it wants, but why would it want to? Cannot two parties contract with each other to grant each other power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc? · Jan 13 at 5:07pm
I'd also like to respond to Katievs as well with this post.
I'm sorting through this as well. I don't think we need to "understand the purpose of a 'civil union.'" But it isn't hard: people want the gov't and society to formally recognize a relationship. That's not reason enough. Diane, your other example about power of attorney falls under the civil union umbrella. It's like a basket of goods. Katievs, the situations aren't analgous, and in any case, Diane's response to me along the same lines could also apply to your argument.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Ed G.
Michael Labeit
Ed G.
No, those 1,138 benefits aren't the purpose of marriage. They constitute the promotion and encouragement. What do we promote and encourage via these 1,138 benefits? Unions that create new life in which the biological parents take responsibility. Why do we promote and encourage such a union? Because such unions are generally the best case for society (and the new lives too).
Those benefits are not the purpose that you think marriage should serve. But in reality, marriage does permit a couple to achieve those objectives. Marriage is a multifacted instrument. It can "create new life in which the biological parents take responsibility" and it can allow a couple to achieve those 1,138 benefits. Simply because a tool was designed for a particular purpose does not mean said tool cannot serve different objectives. Why not marry in order to, perhaps among other things, attain those 1,138 benefits?
Dec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Would you agree that if it served a societal purpose then exclusions and distinctions are then justified?
No.
Feb '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: .....
There was a time, during World War I, when a German immigrant couldn't get a marriage license. There was a time when a black man couldn't get a license to marry a white woman. .....
These things are arbitrary restrictions that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with marriage. In the parlance of employment discrimination, they have nothing to do with the essential function of marriage. Good riddance to them.