Category archives: Marriage

Where can we find eHarmony “Classic”?

by JP Duffy

April 2, 2009

Last November, eHarmony capitulated to the New Jersey Attorney General who demanded that eHarmony cater to homosexuals.  Despite an outcry from eHarmony success couples from across the country, eHarmony followed through this week on its promise to launch a same-sex matching service.

My wife and I met on eHarmony almost three years ago, and we quickly began recommending the service to our single friends who were also drawn to the company’s good reputation.  Last year, I told The Wall Street Journal, eHarmony’s success didn’t come from its slick advertising campaigns.  It was their high moral standards, because they rose above the ‘hook-up’ mentality of their competitors, and because they were openly helping people find marriage partners.  

eHarmony always asks new customers how they “heard” about the service.  At the top of the list is “word of mouth.”  Since the same-sex matching decision was announced, we have heard from a steady stream of other eHarmony couples who are closing their mouths shut.    Without this word-of-mouth campaign, fewer values-driven customers will pay for this service, resulting in a new eHarmony that bears little resemblance to the classic values matching service it once provided. 

It’s disappointing to watch eHarmony take this road because I believe there is a vital need for a values matching service.  With eHarmony getting out of this business, will we see another service step up to fill the void?  I know there are many Christian dating sites. I won’t need to use a values matching service again, but I know single friends who do.  For their sake, I will be looking out for an eHarmony “Classic” to rise again. 

Marriage in These United States

by Family Research Council

January 30, 2009

While the homosexual lobby suffered some losses last year they are not resting on their laurels and neither should we.

In Texas last week, a homosexual Dallas man filed for divorce from his partner in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court. The couple “married” in 2006 when they lived in Massachusetts. Up in Maine, on the heels of the homosexual lobby group GLAD’s vow to redefine marriage throughout New England, forces are gathering to defeat a legislative measure that would legalize homosexual marriage in the Pine Tree State. In the state of Hawaii, where in 1998 nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters supported traditional marriage when they passed a constitutional amendment that gave the state legislature the authority to reserve marriage to one man and one woman, is now seeking to redefine marriage by passing “marriage lite,” or civil unions.

Two states that saw marriage victories in 2008 are still fighting back forces that seek to undermine families. In California a federal judge has denied a request to keep names of donors to the state’s marriage protection amendment secret. An updated list of late donors is to be released Monday. This is of great concern for we witnessed both during and after the marriage amendment debate in California donors in support of marriage faced vandalism, losing their jobs and other forms of thuggery. Meanwhile in Arizona, a new initiative drive seeks to give homosexual Arizonans civil partnerships or counterfeit marriage.

Pro-family advocates are not just sitting around waiting for the other side to attack. Just an example of the many pro-marriage initiatives include the state of Wyoming seeking to pass a marriage amendment in their state and the city council of Sioux City, Iowa looking to pass a resolution defining marriage for their city.

For more information on what is going on in your state and what you can do about it please contact your state family policy council listed here.

FRC Responding to Newsweek Bias

by Timothy Dailey

December 19, 2008

The day after Newsweek published it’s inaccurate article called “Our Mutual Joy,” FRC sent the following letter to the editor for their exclusive use to provide some small balance to their highly biased article. As it does not appear you will be reading it in the pages of Newsweek, you can see it here for yourself:

Having years ago completed my doctoral dissertation on the subject of the Bible and homosexuality, I found “Our Mutual Joy” to be breathtaking in its summary dismissal of thousands of years of Judeo/Christian belief and teaching regarding homosexual behavior - not to mention the virtually unanimous judgment of societies throughout history in defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

That fundamental understanding regarding marriage is reflected by the 29 states that have passed constitutional amendments and the additional 15 states that have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

But this overwhelming conviction is evidently of little consequence to Newsweek, which cobbled together a list of specious pro-homosexuality arguments similar to what I encountered a quarter of a century ago. They were unconvincing then, and have not improved with age. For those interested in the other side of this issue - which Newsweek inexcusably failed to provide - an outstanding treatment of the subject is Prof. Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, which makes short work of the tendentious pabulum served up by “Our Mutual Joy.”

Timothy J. Dailey

Senior Fellow for Policy

Family Research Council

Washington, DC

Newsweek, or Opinion Weak?

by Peter Sprigg

December 10, 2008

Newsweek has declared war on marriage. That is the only way to interpret its publishing a lengthy cover story by Lisa Miller that rehashes a laundry list of unoriginal arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage.” There are so many logical and theological errors in this piece that we felt it deserved a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal. FRC’s President, Tony Perkins, and Vice President for Policy, the Rev. Peter Sprigg, collaborated in preparing this piece

 

Passages in bold below are quotes from the Newsweek article; following each is a rebuttal/response.

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does… .  Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

There is a difference between how the Bible defines marriage and how it depicts it in all it’s sin-corrupted reality. It is defined in the creation:

22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man… .  24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22, 24, NASB)

The accounts of the lives of the Patriarchs, like Abraham, Jacob and David make abundantly clear that deviations from the model of one man one woman led to a multitude of personal and societal problems. 

 “The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust.”

Neither Jesus nor Paul were indifferent to marriage or familial ties-they simply gave priority to unhindered service to God.  Jesus’ first recorded miracle was at a wedding, which is hard to see as a non-endorsement of the institution.  Paul taught extensively on proper family relationships, especially of those of husbands and wives and fathers and children (Eph 5:22-6:4).  To somehow infer that Paul was indifferent to marriage is a denial of reality.  Paul was also very clear on one man one woman marriage (1 Tim 3:2, 12).  There was a reason for Paul’s repeated focus on marriage - marriage is central to the gospel because it is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  Christ is the bridegroom and the Church the bride.  He instructs husbands to follow the manner of Christ and give themselves for the benefit of their wives (Eph 5:25).  It is incomprehensible that Paul would say same-sex marriage reflected the life-giving, hope-filled union of Christ and His bride. 

Of course, marriage was not mandatory in the New Testament-nor is it for social conservatives today. Jesus and Paul both upheld celibacy-as the only acceptable alternative to fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman. The same value is upheld by the modern abstinence movement.

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

This is flatly false. See again Genesis 2:

22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man… .  24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22, 24, NASB)

This was explicitly affirmed by Jesus himself, as recorded in two of the gospels:

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6”So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:3-6, NASB)

2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6”But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7”FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9”What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12, NASB)

Paul also twice affirms one man one woman marriage as a condition for church leadership (although it is somewhat unclear whether he is contrasting it with polygamy or with divorce and remarriage):

1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach …  (I Timothy 3: 1-2, NASB)

5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (Titus 1:5-6, NASB)

Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married-and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

The Bible is a “living document” only because it is the Word of God, inspired by the living Holy Spirit, not because we have been given license to ignore its plain teachings to compromise with the spirit of the present age instead. Everywhere that Scripture refers to marriage (even the polygamous ones), it is a male-female union, and everywhere that Scripture refers to homosexual conduct, it either condemns it in the strongest possible terms or at the very least casts it in a negative light. (Note: there is not one shred of evidence that the love between David and Jonathan was sexual in nature.)

Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument-in particular, this verse from Genesis: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.’ But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.

That is true, so if these men wanted to cover their tracks, would they not have tried to create cover for their ideas of marriage by saying it was God’s idea?  Rather it is made clear that is a singular union.  And by the way, God’s model of marriage was designed prior to the fall of man.  

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was-in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise-emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels.”

Yes, Jesus was definitely unmarried, and it is true that the “bond in God superseded all blood ties.” But “leave your families and follow me” is a rather simplistic paraphrase. Jesus’ disciples James and John, adult men, leave their father’s fishing business when Jesus calls them (Matt. 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20), and Jesus admonished one questioner who wants to “bury my father” not to delay in following him (Matt. 8:19-22, Luke 9:59-62). The most sweeping statement of this nature made by Jesus is recorded in Mark 10:28-30 (paralleled by Luke 18:28-30):

28Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” 29Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. (NASB)

It is not clear whether “children” here actually refers to minors; and none of these passages speaks of leaving one’s spouse. How Miller can conclude that adult sons leaving home to pursue their own calling undermines the traditional nuclear family is not really clear.

Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce . . .”

This is undoubtedly because Jesus encountered many more people who were tempted by easy divorce than he did people who were tempted by homosexuality. The whole argument that “Jesus never mentions homosexuality,” and therefore that he must have tolerated it, is ridiculous on its face. Jesus never mentions rape or child sexual abuse, but that can hardly be interpreted to mean that he condoned them. As with those sexual sins, he may have felt that homosexuality was so clearly offensive that there was no point in stating the obvious.

A more precise exegetical point is this. There certainly are parts of the Old Testament law that were abrogated in some sense by Jesus, such as the dietary laws. But that was never the case for any of the laws governing sexual conduct. Both, for example, are mentioned (and contrasted) in Mark 7:14-23:

14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16[“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] 17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21”For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23”All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” (NASB)

Note that while he “declared all foods clean,” the same is not true of all sexual relationships, because “fornications,” “adulteries,” and “sensuality” remain among those things that “defile the man.”

If anything, Jesus strengthened the Old Testament teachings against sexual sin, rather than weakening them. He tightened restrictions on divorce (Matt. 5:31-32; Matt. 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18) and on adultery:

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [Matt. 5:27-28: NASB].

There is no passage where Jesus ever weakened restrictions on sexual behavior. In the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11), he prevented the imposition of the death penalty by stoning, but he did not say that she had not sinned-rather, he admonished her to “sin no more.”

It probably goes without saying that the phrase “gay marriage” does not appear in the Bible at all.”

Precisely-so how the author can claim that the Bible supports it is a mystery.

” … nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women . . .”

This is simply false-see Romans 1:26:

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (NASB)

This is the passage which even liberal evangelical Tony Campolo says cannot be evaded in giving proof that all homosexual conduct is sinful.

Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as ‘an abomination’ (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat-or a lamb or a turtle dove.”

Homosexual activists are fond of dismissing the Leviticus passage by dismissing the larger context of the Levitical code. However, they never place the most famous Leviticus verse (18:22) in its immediate context:

20‘You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. 21’You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 22’You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23’Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. (Leviticus 18:20-23)

Adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality are the behaviors that are most directly compared with homosexuality-not leprosy or menstruation.

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition . . .”

This is a completely ridiculous statement that is supportable only when you accept the idiosyncratic postmodern exegesis she has already laid out, which is completely out of step with responsible biblical interpretation. Even many homosexual activists concede that there is no question that the Bible condemns all homosexual relationships. They argue that we must simply dismiss the Bible as a source of moral authority.

The Bible endorses slavery … It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

The issue of the Bible and slavery is certainly a complicated one, because it is true that the Bible does not unequivocally condemn slavery-however, that it not the same thing as saying that it “endorses” it. To say, “It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites” is ridiculous, given that the Bible was written by Jews, about Jews, and primarily for Jews.

However, note the author’s logical inconsistency here. After arguing for several pages that the Bible, in fact, does not condemn homosexual acts and does not define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, she is suddenly shifting gears and saying that we have to ignore what the Bible does teach if it conflicts with modern political correctness.

Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century … Today’s vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of ‘Marriage, a History.’”

The first sentence is ridiculous-see I Timothy 3: 1-2 and Titus 1:5-6, cited above. But it is undoubtedly asserted by Coontz, the left’s favorite marriage scholar. David Blankenhorn (who is moderate to liberal both politically and theologically, but a serious scholar of marriage and the family) has written that “nearly every sentence that Stephanie Coontz writes contains at least one piece of confusion.”

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual … It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs.”

Actually, there are a number of passages in the Bible with marital advice that remains timely today (even if it does not conform to the rigid egalitarianism that modern liberals insist upon). They include Ephesians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:18-21, and I Peter 3:1-7.

However, Miller cites no Biblical verses that suggest the importance of “loving pairs” other than male-female marriages, except for the story of David and Jonathan. This can fit Miller’s rather elastic term “loving pair,” but is nowhere described as a marital or family relationship, but rather a very deep friendship.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified… The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann … quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: ‘There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.’”

This is a subtle way of injecting, implicitly, the myth that people are “born gay” or that there is a “gay gene.” Ethnic identity, slave status, and gender are all human characteristics that are beyond an individual’s choice. The same cannot be said of homosexual conduct. In reality even today, and certainly in the Bible, homosexuality is not an “identity,” it is a chosen behavior-a behavior which is in every instance condemned as sinful.

Did the early church contain people who had engaged in homosexual behavior? The answer is yes-but the relevant text is not the one Brueggemann cites, but I Corinthians 6:9-11:

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Active homosexuals will not “inherit the kingdom of God” unless and until they are washed, sanctified, and justified by Christ. The church in Corinth could not have imagined homosexual marriage, but it did have former homosexuals among its members.

If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow… If we are all God’s children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color-and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that… More basic than theology, though, is human need… . We want our children to grow up in stable homes.”

There are several issues intertwined in these excerpts. Twice here Miller compares homosexual relationships with race. But race is a characteristic which is inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous. None of those things can honestly be said about the choice to engage in homosexual relationships. When Miller says that “no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that,” it’s somewhat unclear whether she’s talking about arguing for racial exclusion (in which case she’s right) or talking about “denying access to any sacrament based on sexuality”-in which case she is dead wrong. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (493 pages) makes a far more “serious” case for the traditional view of homosexuality than Miller makes against it. But in any case, her premise is false. Remember, strictly speaking, no one is “excluded” from marriage because of their “sexual orientation”-it’s just that “marriage” is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Many self-identified homosexuals have been married (to people of the opposite sex), while many former homosexuals are currently married (to people of the opposite sex). Furthermore, the comparison with race is not valid (see comments on previous quote).

The “values of stability [and] monogamy” are precisely what is threatened by same-sex “marriage.” The research shows that homosexual relationships (particularly male homosexual relationships) simply are not characterized by “stability” or “monogamy” to any degree that is comparable to male-female marriage, and are often overtly rejected by homosexuals (who, for example, often seek other outside sexual partners even when they already have a “long-term” partner). I would agree that “[w]e [meaning society] want our children to grow up in stable homes”-but affirming homosexual parenting by allowing homosexual marriage would undermine that goal, since the higher rates of sexual promiscuity, STD’s, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse among homosexuals are not conducive to a “stable” environment. Furthermore, an abundance of social science research shows that children raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage do better than children in any other living situation.

Finally, I would agree that “[m]ore basic than theology, though, is human need.” And the most fundamental “human need,” apart from sheer survival, is to reproduce ourselves. That is something that can only be done naturally by the union of a man and a woman. And fundamentally that-not Biblical teaching, nor “custom and tradition”-is why civil marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman

The True Motivations behind the Passage of Proposition 8

by Krystle Gabele

December 5, 2008

In The Mercury News (San Jose), there was an article that mentioned the strong factors in the vote for Proposition 8. These two factors were education and income. While these two factors may have had some impact in the passage, there is reasonable indication that voters still respect the institution of family.

According to a recent Public Policy Institute of California study quoted in The Mercury News, the measure drew strong support from evangelical Christians.

As other polls had shown, the measure drew overwhelming support from evangelical Christians (85 percent in favor), robust backing from political conservatives and strong opposition from liberals. Baldassare said it’s difficult to say from the polling why people with higher incomes and a college degree tend to support same-sex marriage.

Today, we often read in publications that the family is declining in America. After the recent passage of Proposition 8 by Californians, we realize the institution of family is still in tact and respected by many in our society. While socioeconomic factors and education have a significant impact in how someone will vote, it is ultimately the values that were instilled at home that guide us in our actions at the polls.

Two Important Pieces from the Washington Times

by Chris Gacek

December 2, 2008

Over the extended holiday weekend, the Washington Times published an editorial and a commentary piece that are well worth reading:

  • The Times editorial appeared on Friday, November 28, and was entitled “Judicial Imperialism.”  First, the paper discusses the worrying ramifications of the recent settlement by eHarmony, a California company, which was forced by the state of New Jersey to offer dating services to gay customers in New Jersey.  Second, the editorial discusses the dangerous and illegitimate effort to have the California Supreme Court thwart the will of the Golden State’s voters and declare its recently-passed marriage amendment unconstitutional. 
  • The commentary piece was authored by Jeffrey T. Kuhner.  His first Sunday opinion column with the Times was published on September 28th.  In Kuhner’s latest, entitled “Obama vs. Pope Benedict,” he recognizes the struggle that may erupt between Mr. Obama and the Pope should the new administration pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  He sets the stage as follows:

Mr. Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) “would be the equivalent of a war,” a senior Vatican official told Time magazine last week. “It would be like saying, ‘We’ve heard the Catholic Church and we have no interest in their concerns.’ ”

Republicans and Marriage

by Tony Perkins

November 6, 2008

In yesterday’s Washington Update I wrote about how the exit polling from November 4 clearly shows that the marriage amendments are non-partisan. In 2004 and to a lesser degree in 2006 supporters of various marriage amendments were accused of using them for partisan purposes to help the Republican Party. There is no question that certain Republican candidates, including President Bush who campaigned in support of the amendments, were aided by the amendments’ presence on the ballot. The benefit to the candidates was in proportion to their alignment with the amendments, not with their party allegiance.

President Bush increased his support among African-American voters in Ohio going from 11% nationally to 16% in the Buckeye State, enough to give him the edge in that battleground state and secure a second term. Those gains among minority voters evaporated in this election even though these voters continued to vote to protect marriage from redefinition.

One could argue that the marriage amendments may have actually hurt Republicans in this cycle, especially John McCain. Literally millions of dollars were invested in the efforts to protect marriage in California and Arizona. Thousands of volunteer hours were spent in those two states and Florida to secure passage of these amendments. The McCain campaign was virtually silent on the amendments and as a result received little benefit from the efforts, which was especially significant in the battleground state of Florida.

It is quite possible that a large portion of the time, energy and resources that were spent in this election cycle to protect marriage would have been invested elsewhere had the federal marriage amendment been approved by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005. The irony is that Sen. McCain opposed the marriage amendment and joined the Democrats and a handful of Republicans in blocking a vote on the amendment. On Election Day the protect marriage movement ran ahead of the Republican candidates.

Marriage Wins Despite Liberal Control of Washington

by Peter Sprigg

November 5, 2008

The traditional, historic, and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman was a winner on Election Day, despite the simultaneous victories for Democrats in capturing the White House and expanding their majority in Congress.

The latest results as of midday on Wednesday (November 5) show that state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a one-man one-woman union had passed in Florida and Arizona and one was likely to pass in California as well.

Although many states that have already adopted such amendments did so fairly handily (especially in 2004), each of the amendments on the ballot in 2008 faced unique challenges.

Florida was the only one of the three states where adoption of the amendment required not just a simply majority of the vote, but a super-majority of 60%. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment was the only one of the three on the ballot this year that was a “strong” or “two-sentence” amendment, meaning that included language to prevent “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” as well as same-sex “marriage.” Florida’s amendment campaign was also probably the most under-funded of the three-yet they still managed to clear the higher hurdle set for them, winning 62.1% to 37.9%, with 99% of the vote counted (official results).

Arizona was the only state ever to see a marriage amendment defeated at the polls. In 2006, an earlier “two-sentence” amendment was defeated-ironically, not because of its impact on same-sex couples, but because of publicity about its potential impact on opposite-sex couples who sometimes enter into “domestic partnerships” to avoid losing Social Security benefits to a “marriage penalty.” This year Proposition 102, a revised, “one-sentence” amendment focused only on the definition of civil marriage, was successful by a margin of 56.5% to 43.5%, with 99.1% of the vote in (see official results). Turning the 2006 defeat into a 2008 victory is a great accomplishment for pro-family forces in Arizona.

The most closely-watched and heavily-funded (on both sides) campaign was the one in California. That state’s Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling on May 15 of this year that overturned two state laws defining marriage, thus opening the door for same-sex couples to begin receiving marriage licenses a month later. The idea that the amendment would “take away rights” that same-sex couples were already enjoying undoubtedly made passage harder. This was reinforced by the biased language which California Attorney General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown ordered on the ballot, declaring that the amendment primarily “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry,” rather than more neutrally stating that it “defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Despite this finger on the scale, and a vicious campaign against the amendment that included anti-religious ads, vandalism, and even violence, California’s Proposition 8 appears to have passed, 52.2% to 47.8% with 96.4% of precincts reporting (official results). As I was writing this piece, it was reported on TV that the Associated Press had declared victory for Proposition 8. Congratulations to the people of California for successfully exercising the ultimate check against judicial tyranny in our political system.

The only disappointment on the marriage front was in Connecticut, whose Supreme Court followed the lead of California’s (also by a one-vote margin) on October 10 by fabricating a constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage.” Connecticut does not have an initiative process whereby the people can place constitutional amendments on the ballot by petition. However, they did have the opportunity yesterday to call for a constitutional convention. Pro-marriage forces hoped that a convention might adopt an initiative process, which in turn could be used to place marriage on the ballot. Unfortunately, this three-step process may not have been understood by the voters, who rejected the idea of a constitutional convention by 59% to 41% (results here).

In addition to the three marriage amendments, however, there was one other victory yesterday for traditional family structures. Arkansas adopted a law (Proposed Initiative Act No. 1) by 56.8% to 43.2% (see here) which prohibits adoption or foster care by persons who are cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage. While this would effectively bar homosexual couples from adopting, it also applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex couples. (Single people would still be allowed to adopt, without regard to sexual orientation). Thus, while this bill is being described as “anti-gay-adoption,” it would be more accurately described as “anti-cohabitation.”

Whatever “mandate” President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress may claim from yesterday’s results, it is clearly not a mandate (even in Florida and California, which Obama carried) to change the definition of marriage or the family.

The Most Effective Peacekeepers

by Michael Leaser

August 6, 2008

A former deputy director of children and family services in Illinois recently described her disturbing encounter with a bunch of young children witnessing, but apparently doing nothing to stop, a neighborhood fight. Visibly disturbed by the incident, she offers several solutions to reducing student violence, at the core of which is good parents building their own neighborhood.

The latest Mapping America lends support to these suggestions and demonstrates with federal survey data that married parents are the most effective peacekeeping force.

Bob Morrison on John Adams Series

by Family Research Council

July 27, 2008

John Adams’ Pointed Prayer

By Robert G. Morrison

The great popularity of the recent HBO series, John Adams, is well deserved. The movie, unlike the fine David McCullough book, shows how good old honest John got himself in a peck of trouble as the first Vice President. He took up six weeks of the time of the first Senate with long and tedious lectures on titles. David McCullough, when he spoke at the National Press Club in 2000, airily dismissed Adams’ disastrous misstep. “Oh, he was a good, thrifty New Englander. He didn’t want to make the titles hereditary. But he knew everyone loves distinction and he thought titles would be cheap.” The HBO series shows the revulsion of many of the senators at the very idea. Adams wanted the President to be titled: “His high Mightiness, President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties.” Behind Adams’ back, the senators snickered at the portly, balding Vice President, calling him “His Rotundity.”

The series shows Adams in the best of lights, and he deserves much good light. Even when he’s wrong, even when he’s vain and prone to temper tantrums, we see the human toll of his brave labors for Independence. His son Charles dies of alcoholism. His beloved daughter Nabbie dies of breast cancer. Our hearts go out to him and to his beloved Abigail. McCullough told the National Press Club that the correspondence between John and Abigail is on microfiche—and the indelible record of their fidelity and love is five miles long!

When I take the Witherspoon Fellows to Monticello, I always speak of my reverence for Mr. Jefferson, that great defender of religious and civil liberty. But I always disagree with George Will. Will famously wrote that “Thomas Jefferson lived as a free man should live.” No, John Adams lived as a free man should live; he never freed his slaves because he never had any!

My favorite John Adams story dates to the year 2000. Then, Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office. That December, the Clintons invited their nearest and dearest friends to celebrate the two hundred years that the White House had been the Executive Mansion. They asked David McCullough to come and read from his wonderful biography of John Adams.

As the liberal Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory reported, McCullough ended with John Adams’ famous prayer, the one FDR had had engraved in the mantle in the State Dining Room:

I pray Heaven to bestow the best blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”

Miss McGrory wrote that when the prayer was read, all of Bill Clinton’s best friends looked at their shoes in embarrassment. Honest John Adams had crafted that inspiring petition in 1800. He hurled it like a javelin two centuries into the future and he punctured Bill Clinton’s pretensions with his pointed prayer. God bless John Adams!

Archives