|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just say "I do"
Marriage has weathered more history than any other institution on the planet. As empires blossomed and withered on the world scene, the value and purpose and structure of marriage remained unchanged. As the ages of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Discovery and Innovation shaped and changed cultural attitudes, marriage remained a calm center in the midst of a crazily spinning world. Then suddenly, in what amounts to less than an eyeblink in world history, a handful of people have chosen to mess with this institution without any regard for the impact such social engineering will have on our children. Will we allow them to take such liberties with one of the most stabilizing forces on earth?
When the Supreme Court of Canada announced in December 2004 that it was up to the government to make any decisions regarding the redefinition of marriage, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin began pushing hard to do just that. Despite telling his party that he was allowing a "free" vote, he has told his caucus that cabinet ministers are expected to vote his way or they will be disciplined. He has ignored the calls of virtually every religious leader and letters from more than 90,000 Canadians asking him to reconsider his crusade of change. His arguments attempt to wrap his desire for change around the issue of human rights.
How exactly is marriage a human right?
Human rights by definition are the protections that we all share equally. They include freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from persecution on the basis of sex or race or other unchangeable aspects of our persons. Marriage is not a basic human right. It could not be, any more than owning a drivers license could be a human right. It is a commitment between a man and a woman, entered into as a deliberate action, and submitting to legal guidelines. If marriage were in any way a "human right" then it could have no restrictions of any kind. You could not set age limits. You could not restrict someone from marrying a family member. You could not require a contract or establish any guidelines around divorce.
In fact, the Supreme Court of New Zealand found that the opposite sex requirement of marriage is not discriminatory in any way, noting that the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is not based in an Act of Parliament or a court decision but is a recognition of the fundamental nature of marriage itself. The New Zealand Court saw it as no more discriminatory than prohibitions against marrying someone who is underage, marrying a sister or a brother, or marrying someone who is already married -- prohibitions contained in the Marriage Acts of virtually every nation.
Attempting to define marriage around human rights is not only illogical, it is completely absurd. If it were a human right, how could you keep a parent from marrying their infant child? How could you keep brothers and sisters from marrying each other? How could you keep children from getting married?
Marriage, as an institution, has always formed the backbone of civilized culture. It was originally created by God, designed to protect society by providing a structural moral framework for creating strong families and through them communities that can survive the storms of life. Its original concept was to reflect the unconditional love of God for humankind and His unbreakable covenant with us. So important is this commitment between a man and a woman that many people even define their adult behavior by whether or not their parents had a "good marriage."
So powerful is the institution of marriage that numerous medical and psychological studies have found that a stable marriage between one man and one woman is the safest and most positive environment for any child to grow up in. Domestic abuse is much higher in unmarried households and highest of all in same-sex households. According to a number of studies and books on the subject, 25 percent of homosexual households reported domestic violence in the past year serious enough to require medical attention.
So why do a handful of politicians and unelected judges now want to mess with the stabilizing force of traditional marriage? As a society, we have an obligation to protect those traditions that have clearly acted as a foundation of civilized society. If you agree that the definition of marriage as established by God should not be messed with by social engineers, please tell your elected representatives.
