Marriage is not a right, nor is it a truth. Marriage is not a necessary product of love.
It is independent of happiness; it is beholden to no emotion. Marriage is a privilege bestowed by society on whomever, and however, it legislates. Ultimately, a marriage serves no greater purpose -- and has no greater measure of success -- than the children it produces.
Think of marriage as a glass bowl. It will hold water. It will hold wine. It will hold acid -- effortlessly. Whether it is filled with convenience, love or desperation, marriage itself remains intact.
The bowl is filled with whatever the parents bring to the marriage -- namely, themselves -- and it is the child who drinks from this bowl who suffers the consequences. Therefore, such a union must be vetted by the wisest of emotional gastronomes (to continue the libation metaphor).
An article published by The Witherspoon Institute and reprinted on the Family Research Council's Web site iterates this sentiment less poetically, albeit, more poignantly: "Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms."
It is these "emotional terms" that complicate and obfuscate the deepest purpose of marriage. That is, creating a safe, secure and emotionally simple environment where a child's needs are fulfilled. (Simplicity being a function of a child's natural predilections.)
Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan, in her book "Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps," co-written with Gary Sandefur, addresses the biological foundation: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."
But what are the specific benefits of having two biological parents? According to the Witherspoon article, "mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.
Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence." This information was taken from research published by psychologist Eleanor MacCoby of Stanford University.
This isn't a treatise against adoption, as it might appear. No, adoption is one of the greatest acts of selfless love a human being can engage in. This is neither meant to decry single-parenthood.
The impetus for addressing the above is California's Proposition Eight: the proposition to amend California's constitution to define marriage as an act between a man and a woman and the frustration of having the democratic process subverted. This proposition, and any others like it, must be passed and they must be passed democratically.
Dennis Prager, a California-based radio talk-show host, writes in a recent column that "in 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one of the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses).
But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: "Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage."
Such judicial fiats would not be as detrimental to our democracy if not for Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Article IV ensures what is legally binding in one state is legally binding in all states -- and, to be clear, this is vital to this country's unity. Article IV shouldn't be changed, and neither should the democratic process.
Orson Scott Card makes the piercing observation regarding the legal atmosphere of same-sex marriage that a "small group of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice (democracy) and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for the democratic process."
Judicial decree can't negate biology, nor should it be tolerated in a democracy. So why do people want to legalize same-sex marriage? It makes them feel good, that's why.
Love is beautiful, after all. But compassion should not be legislated, and it should never be mandated by oligarchs. Especially when the research shows that there are negative long-term psychological effects with which to contend.
Marriage is not a right. Same-sex marriage is not right. And the usurpation by dictatorial judiciaries of our constitutional rights should never be tolerated in our democracy.
If you have any desire to see this country and this way of life continue into the distant future, embrace the simple truths of the human species and push back against those trying to subvert the processes we hold to be incontrovertible.