Preserve Traditional Marriage for Benefit of Future Generations

mainevillage

Roger Crouse
Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel
09/28/2009

Just 12 years ago, in 1997,the Legislature defined marriage and added that definition to Maine law. Section 650, Title 19-A, of Maine law reads in part:

“The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.” [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

Nothing has changed in our society in the intervening years that invalidates this definition. In fact, society needs the benefits of traditional marriage now more than ever.

Earlier this year, however, the Legislature and the governor determined Section 650 is no longer valid or true. They removed it from law at the same time they granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Instead they have added a statement that changes the meaning of words such as “bride” and “groom,” “husband” and “wife” to be gender-neutral. In essence, they have said that male and female are completely interchangeable and neither gender provides any unique benefit to society.

In addition to saying gender does not matter, the Legislature and governor have redefined the social institution of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has represented the union of a man and a woman. Our governor and Legislature believe they have the wisdom and foresight to know the social impacts of this change.

The future prosperity of our society, state and nation depends upon our ability to raise stable and self-reliant children. Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

Many people today misunderstand why the government began legalizing the marriage relationship. Marriage existed originally as a religious institution. Governments saw the societal benefits of heterosexual marriage and adopted policies to promote marriage.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

The legal right to marry is not about love. If love is the determining factor as to who should be able to get married, there would be no end to the variations of relationships that would qualify for marriage.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

Thirty or 40 years ago. few unmarried couples lived together. If they did live together and had children, they generally married because of social expectation. The social expectation of marriage, however, has eroded and now more children are being reared without their married biological parents.

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

We cannot know the impact on society when, a generation from now, fewer children are being raised in this ideal environment.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Alternative relationships do not provide the same benefit to society. Therefore, government should not provide legal standing to these alternative relationships.

If you disagree with our governor and Legislature, you will have the opportunity to make your opinion known by voting in November.

Send a clear message that traditional monogamous marriage remains “of inestimable value to our society” and does provide the best environment for rearing children.

Vote “yes” on Question 1.

Roger Crouse is a father of four children and lives in Central Maine. He is actively involved in his church and scouting. He loves the hiking and being in the outdoors.

Related Posts:

About these ads

9 Comments

  1. ivee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Marriage is a civil right though, unless you disagree with the Supreme Court saying that interracial marriage must be legal. The ruling says marriage is a fundamental right.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage ivee, nor does it change the history of marriage since the dawn of civilization as between a man and a woman.

  3. Euripides said,

    October 1, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Marriage between anyone besides a man and a woman cannot be a fundamental right because there is no fundamental principle that explains why two people of the same sex must get married. To ignore the fundamental aspects of marriage, such as responsible procreation and children’s rights to a mother and a father is not a sufficient basis to extend civil rights to same sex partners.

  4. Marie said,

    October 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    You’re right on there Euripides! Unions between men do not further the purposes of marriage, family and children, same sex marriage creates pseudo marriage imitations where children can be raised. You don’t have to take my word for it, check the ads prevalent in the gay marriage push. They’re full of clips with two dads trying to fill the roles a mom and a dad should be filling. No number of dads can ever replace a mom.

  5. October 12, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

    This is a lie. No research has been done which compares mother/father relationships to father/father or mother/mother relationships in terms of child rearing. This is just another abuse of science by the right.

    Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

    Societies have also regulated voting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil right. And that a man cannot marry his daughter goes to other reasoning than that marriage is between one man and one woman. It must. Obviously a man marrying his daughter is one man and one woman, so if we disagree that it should happen, then we must be using some other reasoning beside the one man/one woman mantra.

    Marriage being a tool to ensure generational stability is a non-sequitur and bad writing.

    The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

    This is an argument against infertility, the right to choose to not have children, and marriage beyond the age of child-bearing years, too. Does the right really want to go into those grounds?

    If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

    This is purely speculative and has no data to back it up. It is also easily countered with more speculation because one can simply say that homosexuals getting married will have no effect on a heterosexual’s decision to marry. It’s sort of like how blacks getting married didn’t cause white marriage rates to decline.

    Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

    Lies. This is about Bible-based hatred of homosexual activity (and often homosexuals, despite lying denials). And if this is about ensuring society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between one man and one woman, then there should be a push to legally compel people to marry. After all, that wouldn’t be about denying the civil rights of individuals to choose to not get married, it would be about ensuring societal benefits, no?

  6. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Michael. Interesting hypothesis, but you haven’t provided anything to back up your assertions besides your lengthy opinion.

  7. October 12, 2009 at 10:53 am

    beetlebabee,

    Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage ivee, nor does it change the history of marriage since the dawn of civilization as between a man and a woman.

    Marriage has had many definitions, including homosexuality. Most often, however, it has been meant to indicate a business agreement between two families.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2009 at 11:36 am

    I do not think that marriage is primarily a business arrangement, either historically or currently. Marriage is between a man and a woman only.

  9. October 12, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    A brief history of marriage

    Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn’t and don’t have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn’t marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.

    Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride’s family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride’s family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: