“Denying children parents of both genders is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.” Probably not a statement most people would attribute to a "progressive".
Actually, it was spoken by Douglas Manwaring, a co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots who also happens to be openly gay. As a father of two adopted sons, he once divorced his wife to pursue his homosexual desires and has since moved back in with his ex-wife to raise his kids after discovering over the course of a decade that “creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman.”
Although Manwaring is a staunch believer in civil unions, he doesn’t mince words regarding marriage stating that “Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society.” Again, this is from an openly gay man who has decided the rights of children trump the emotional needs of adults. Click HERE for the article on Manwaring.
In Paris last week, nearly half a million French marched against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in the country we liberated on the beaches of Normandy. Joining the pro-family conservatives were homosexual activists of a different stripe like Jean-Marc, a French mayor who claimed “The rights of children trump the right to children.” In a country that defines having a laissez faire attitude toward all things sexual, something is surfacing in their own LGBTQ community as gay marriage takes center stage.
Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is another prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview. “[T]he most serious study done so far...demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.” Can you say Vive la France ? Click here for more.
As the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in cases that challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, its time to get up to speed on this defining issue. In no uncertain terms, this is the Roe v. Wade regarding marriage in our country.
Ultimately, we cannot forget or overlook that Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Moms and dads are both necessary for the optimal setting to raise a child and neither is replaceable by a generic “adult.” Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children, while respecting everyone’s freedom to form their own relationships. It is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman and the reality that children need a mother and a father. It predates government and is the fundamental building block of all human civilization.
The Supreme Court should resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. The Court should not attempt to silence the debate, but should let it go on. The Court should respect the freedom of citizens to affirm the bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization.
Those who want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples are excluding the norm of sexual complementarity. As they do that, other norms like monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency become optional as well. Is this really what we want as a culture for generations to come?
As Alaskans, we need to remember that we were the first state in the country to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in our State Constitution. If the high Court rules against DOMA, that amendment is deemed meaningless. That 1998 amendment, by the way, has not prevented one gay or lesbian couple from forming a meaningful relationship. Advocates for redefining marriage should not be allowed to do an end run on the democratic process to accomplish their political objectives.
Back in France, 66 year-old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told a local newspaper he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."
As our nation’s highest Court deliberates over the next two days and into their predicted decision sometime in June, may they realize that activists shouldn’t be allowed to convert marriage from an institution centered on the needs of children to an institution focused on the desires of adults.