| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 44° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
February 4, 2004
There's a good reason for traditional marriage
Don't believe any of them for a minute. The defense of the marriage act and those who support it is designed to reverse 40 years of active government policies and liberal court decisions that diminished the institution to the point divorce became necessary for survival. Like most of the other parts of the now failed Great Society program, the idea welfare assistance was to be available only to unmarried mothers was not how the program was sold to anyone; it was just the result. Marriage has been a religious and societal institution for most of recorded history and for very legitimate reasons. Sexually transmitted diseases were a much greater threat to the existence of humans as a species then than now. People did not have access to antibiotics or doctors in the days of Abraham. Protecting the health of people of childbearing age was a societal necessity. Although most secularists will argue against trying it today, abstinence was made the law of the land in an attempt to prevent the spread of socially transmitted diseases. Adultery and promiscuity were criminal acts punishable by death, and people were taught to respect themselves so they would be able to produce and raise the next generation. Bearing healthy children was a primary reason for creating marriage, and the religious ceremony was used to instill both pride and purpose in the minds of the people. The only change from the days of Abraham is that polygamy is no longer permitted in Judeo-Christian society. Marriage evolved over the years to be limited to just one man and one woman, with raising children still the main concern. Then government got involved, and all historical perspectives went right out the window. For 40 years the welfare system has penalized the poor and working poor by tying cash and housing benefits to whether or not the person applying is married or not. Those who were married were basically told not to apply. Families were broken up by policy. The result? We have fathers unable to care for the children they bring into the world and mothers left to fend for their children as best they could - and all thanks to an unfeeling bureaucracy. Statistics show children from one-parent families are more prone to criminal behavior, more likely to become welfare dependents themselves and much more likely to be poor when they mature. Not exactly the kind of information big government advocates want the people to know, is it? Just like the marriage tax penalty, the social security penalty for homemakers and current rules of asset confiscation relating to government nursing home aid, when the light of knowledge is shined on the issue people will be appalled and demand change. This is precisely why the liberal secularists would have us believe the Federal Marriage Amendment Act is nothing more than a boondoggle to be wasted on a $1.5 billion bride bailout. The purpose is merely to teach touchy-feely-goodies to people who don't really care anyhow; to cloud the issue and make it seem frivolous and unnecessary. And what is it that scares them so much about the Alliance for Marriage amendment as proposed in Congress? Senate Joint Resolution 26 and House Joint Resolution 56 read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." The very first sentence simply says the marriage shall be between a man and a woman. Nothing prohibits two men or two women from cohabitating; it would simply not be considered a marriage. Sentence two simply ensures an advocate judge couldn't use their discretion to require acceptance of same sex unions as marriage. Nothing more. And it in no way limits business or corporations from providing benefits to non-married couples. Scary stuff isn't it? After all, the onward march of the secular socialists would be slowed were such an amendment to actually be passed into law. And, if marriage can be protected from irrelevance, how many other moral concepts might the people find to be acceptable once again? Perhaps returning to the limited form of government this country was founded on might catch on. One can only hope. (Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays.) |
