Should California Pass Prop 8?

Recommend (3) Comments (11)

There appears to be an underlying assumption inherent in the arguments of those who promote a redefinition of marriage, and who oppose Proposition 8 on the California ballot.  They contend that 1) marriage has no original purpose, or that 2) the purpose of marriage as an institution is to impart benefits to people who choose to live together.  

There is an original purpose to marriage, however, rooted in human biology and noticeable in of the laws of early civilizations.  Marriage exists because the sexual union of a man and a woman results in children.  For centuries, community leaders in diverse cultures maintained that a man and woman had an obligation to raise the child they had created.  The marriage bond also served to bring the father into a legal relationship with his offspring.  While the childbearing capacity of a woman bound her physically to her child, a social construct was required to tie the father to his child.  Understood as a publicly-recognized sexual relationship between one man and one woman, marriage accomplished at least two things: children received the benefits of having both biological parents, and society did not bear the responsibility of financial or civic support for orphans.  

In our modern era, we have seen that the social institution of marriage became not only practical, but also beneficial for women, men and children.  More than three decades of social science evidence indicates that children function best with the married presence of their biological parents.  Moreover, Child Trends, a leading child advocacy organization, claims that the marriage of the parents remains significant to their children.    

“An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development.[1] (Emphasis in original)

This paper can be found in the evidence section below.

Same-sex marriage advocates often contend that widespread divorce among heterosexuals has detrimentally affected the stability of marriage long before there was a push to redefine the institution, and this is true.  It does not follow, however, that because marriage as an institution is weakened that its original purpose is lost, or that civilization can or should use it to promote another end entirely.  

As we consider that marriage is our most pro-child institution, it remains especially pertinent that the wants and desires of adults should not supersede the needs and rights of children to a mother and a father -- whether through the laxness of our divorce laws, or as we consider redefining marriage beyond one man and one woman.  Widespread divorce was a social experiment which undermined the stability of family and failed more than two generations of children.  If marriage is redefined, our family laws will have undermined the family structure that we know is best for children.

Proponents of redefining marriage want it to accomplish something which it was never designed or intended to do — the affirmation of homosexual relationships.  Marriage is not a legal vehicle for equality; it is a social institution with children at its heart.