Featured Image

February 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Public opinion has nothing to do with whether something is good or moral, but it’s worth noting how so-called same-sex marriage came to Alabama. It was imposed on Alabama the same way it’s been imposed on the majority of the American people—by activist judges.

It’s no surprise that progressives and liberal media are going bananas over Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to give in to judicial tyranny or ignore the Alabama Constitution’s marriage amendment before the Supreme Court weighs in.  They are incensed that one man has the intestinal fortitude to stand for the rule of law and resist the imposition of same-sex “marriage” upon a state that voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as between one man and one woman.   

Liberals have been pushing the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and gender ideology on Alabama for quite some time.  They try to frame those who support marriage as similar to racists and segregationists, and use emotional manipulation to imply that disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” means you are a Christian bully or that you want to keep loving families apart.

Alabama’s marriage law didn’t ban anything; it defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage itself and has far-reaching consequences.

Marriage supporters must be ready to defend marriage using charity, truth, and courage. Across the country, bakers, photographers, and wedding planners have faced considerable fines, lawsuits, and bankruptcy for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Anyone who expresses any disagreement with the gay lobby is labeled a bigot or a hater.

But believing marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman that brings new life into the world is anything but bigoted.

Marriage is a beautiful institution that ties kids to their parents, and allows them to learn from both their mother and their father, who each contribute to parenting in a different but valuable way.

In contrast, same-sex unions can never be marriages. Marriage brings a man and a woman together for life and to care for any children that their union produces. Marriage has been crucial to society throughout history because it connects children to their biological parents.

Although circumstances sometimes prevent children from being raised by both of their parents, decades of social science demonstrate that children have the best chance at success when married biological parents raise them. It’s an injustice to children to deliberately deny them a relationship with one or more of their biological parents.

Families are micro-societies where children learn the norms of masculinity and femininity. We must stand in solidarity with single parents whose conditions are often not through their own fault, but acknowledge that ideally, every child should be known and loved by his or her mother and father.

Marriage benefits children, who do best when raised by a married mother and father. Marriage acknowledges the biological fact that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction.

Redefining marriage to be a union based solely on adult feelings, not the needs and rights of children, puts kids at risk. Same-sex “marriage” views children as a commodity to which adults are entitled.

Redefining marriage ultimately leads to redefining parenthood. Same-sex “marriage” undermines the notion that children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents—a principle that was nearly universally acknowledged, especially in law, until recently.

Although not every marriage produces children, every child has a mother and a father. A married couple can still unite in a way that is ordered toward procreation; a same-sex couple cannot.

Marriage is a personal promise with a public purpose, children. Without the assistance of an additional person, same-sex unions cannot produce children.  Ironically, the campaign for same-sex “marriage” in Alabama complains:

For eight long years, Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand have been trying to establish a legal bond to their son, Khaya, who they welcomed into the world in December 2005. They have filed petition after petition seeking second-parent adoption for the child, rightly asserting that there is no reason that Khaya should not be legally connected to both of his parents.  

Except Khaya is not their son.  He is the son of Kim McKeand and a man—his mother and his father.  Claiming that two women are his parents ignores this reality.

The three essential characteristics of marriage are complementarity, exclusivity, and permanency. Complementarity allows for the two halves of humanity to bring new life into the world. Exclusivity and monogamy, marriage scholar Ryan Anderson writes, “encourage childbearing within a context that makes it most likely that children will be raised by their mother and father.”

Complementarity, exclusivity, and monogamy benefit children. Removing any of these characteristics from marriage changes the institution and benefits the whims of adults instead.

If marriage is just “a union of two people who love each other,” then two is an arbitrary number. Why not expand “marriage equality” to three people, or four? If they all love each other, then why can’t they get “married,” too?

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Once marriage is no longer a complementary, conjugal union, then there’s no reason why it must be limited to just two consenting adults.

Many would have you think this battle is about “marriage equality.” It’s not. It’s about redefining marriage altogether.

Laws defining marriage do not prevent two women, two men, or various polyamorous arrangements from loving each other, living together, and spending their lives with each other.  But these relationships are not marriages and should not be recognized as such. 

Marriage is treated differently than other relationships under the law precisely because it is different.  It benefits children—our future—and links them to their parents. 

Anyone who believes that children have a right to be loved and known by both of their parents should prepare to stay in the culture war for this battle—and likely future battles over whether three or more people legally have the right to a child who is not their own. 

Now is not the time to wilt.

The fight to protect the family isn’t one that can be sat out in good conscience. As society becomes increasingly secular and intolerant of people who believe mothers and fathers matter, the price we will pay for our beliefs will only be greater. The trials that come from striving to faithfully live in such a culture may not be comfortable, but we can hope that ultimately they will be worth it for future generations.