Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman

For generations of time marriage is the union between a man and a woman. These are pictures of my grandparents and great grandparents. All of them were married and had big families full of children and love. All of them were sealed in the temple as man and wife. The institution of marriage protected the children from any outside sources that would separate them from their parents and siblings. Because a man and a woman are married, they are entitled to protection from the state for their family. This practice of marriage between and a man and a woman go back for 10 generations of time in my ancestry. Civilization and society recognize that a healthy society stems from the raising of children in families. Without the strength of family, societies will struggle.

Therefore, many governments are invested in the protection of the family as defined as the marriage of one man and one woman. In an address before the Indiana House Judiciary Committee, Ryan Anderson, who is a member of the Heritage Foundation, which is a nonpartisan think tank in Washington DC, testified, "Marriage exists to unite a man and woman as a husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that union produces. It is based on the biological fact that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the anthropological truth that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It is based on the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father" (Ryan Anderson,2014). This is true in every aspect of the question of same-sex marriage. It is an advantage of society to protect and support marriage because it produces children that are happy and healthy. Societies are protecting their future when they support families. Why does it matter that the definition of marriage is changed? It matters because marriage outside of the definition of man and woman does not create healthy children. In their rush to change all the laws that states had put into place, the Supreme Court did an injustice to the children of America and all of its citizens.

The change in the definition of marriage, in 2015, defied all government and constitutional laws. It was not in the right of the Supreme Court to overrule the laws that were passed in almost every state. This kind of ruling robed the people of deciding for themselves how they wanted to define marriage. Justice Roberts in his dissenting argument stated, “Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right” (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015).In other words, the bench took on the job of being legislators and changed the definition despite all the separation of powers that the founding fathers put in the constitution.

Ultimately, changing the definition of marriage creates a social expectation that everyone believes as five justices of the Supreme Court ruling states. Any dissension to the ruling of the Supreme Court is met with name-calling. The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that every state is required to issue marriage licenses to any couple regardless if they are man and woman or of the same sex. In 2015 Justice Kennedy puts forth a very eloquent and persuasive argument. He states, "Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment" (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015).  This might be what the court said they wanted, but the opposite is the reality of society five years after this ruling. 

The ever-increasing pressure to agree with this statement is weaved into every media source in existence. A family cannot turn on the television or view a movie without being inundated with images of same-sex couples. There are images in every sitcom, movie, and even images showing up in commercials. The desensitizing of America is in full force. This is done to the extent that these ideals are almost commonplace in pop-culture. 

In addition to the desensitizing of America by the media, people of religious faith are not protected from proponents of same-sex marriage. There are no protections for people who want to continue to believe in the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. By this ruling from the Supreme Court, there is a lack of protection for religious beliefs. Justice Roberts stated, “Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice” (Obergefell vs. Hodges,2015). This overruling of every state law that was passed concerning same-sex marriage creates a vulnerability for every religion that believes in the traditional definition of marriage. This has proven to be true with same-sex couples suing a business that refuses to participate in their marriage ceremony or church adoption agencies declining to place children with same-sex couples. This is a good indication that religion is at risk.

Further, children growing up in such a culture have no strength to counteract such an ideal. With constant bombarding from media, this kind of exposure creates a new generation of children who are not getting married as a man and a woman, nor are they raising families as such. They are practicing cohabitation, identifying as LBGT, and practicing immorality like it has no consequence. In one generation of our family, we are going from 10 generations of ancestors married as husband and wife and raising big families: to a generation where four children are identifying as LBGT, 7 are cohabitating with their partner, and 3 are divorced. This is just one generation of my family. The impact of this ruling is not as benign as Justice Kennedy led the pubic to believe. 

Finally, the impact of such an ideology being forced on American society is felt mostly by the children. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Alito stated, "This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate” (Obergefell vs. Hodges,2015).  In the aftermath of the current generation’s choices, one little grandson said it so plainly, "Can't you and daddy live together?" It is every child's right to live with both of their parents and be raised by a mother and a father. In their childlike innocence, they know that this is the best way. They want to be raised by a mother and a father, but the rights of the children were overshadowed in this ruling.

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of exploring LBGT beliefs mothers or fathers leave the safety of the union between man and woman. To follow the ideals of the LBGT community so they can be true to who you really are. They leave spouses and children and explore all the wonderful freedoms that are placed at their feet. One generation ago this message was not blared out upon every media device and many entered a marriage between a man and a woman. It is the children who would say that their rights are the ones that are really at risk. So, what is the harm of leaving the traditions of our fathers behind? I fear it is the stability of our children's lives and the stability of our society that is really in peril. 

References:

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.

Ryan Anderson Testifies Before the Indiana House Judiciary Committee; January 13, 2014