Posts Tagged ‘traditional marriage’
How her answer to one question shot her into the media spotlight.
By Nathan A. Cherry
Martinsburg, W.V. – While at the Values Voter Summit I had the privilege of hearing Miss California Carrie Prejean. Many will remember that Ms. Prejean was in the final two at the Miss America pageant and seemed to have the pageant in control and poised for victory. Then the pageant and her world changed forever with the answer she gave to one simple question: What is your opinion of same-sex marriage? (The question was asked by openly gay blogger Perez Hilton)
Ms. Prejean would later remark that she thought the question was out of line for a beauty pageant and, to be honest I agree with her. I can’t imagine how the socio-political view on any given topic would possibly affect her reign as Miss America (Perhaps I don’t know as much about the purpose of the pageant as I thought I did).
So, as Miss California stood before thousands, watched by cameras and millions of people across the country she found herself at a crisis of faith and desire. She had desired to be a pageant winner her entire life. She had desired to win Miss America and compete for Miss Universe. But the faith instilled in her from childhood was strong, and she knew she could not betray it.
Washington, D.C. – I was happy to have a few moments to talk with National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallgher this morning just before the break in the Values Voter Summit. Ms. Gallagher’s strong voice and unwavering biblical definition of marriage might surprise you when you see her short frame, but when she begins to speak you get the sense that she is much taller than her physical appearance suggests.
I asked Ms. Gallgher what she believed the greatest threat against marriage was at this time. Her answer surprised me just a bit, but after hearing her it made complete sense. She said,
“The consensus for what marriage is and what it’s for has been broken. Children need to learn and be taught exactly what marriage is.”
She went on to say that the public fight is important. People need to wake up and realize that this will change America in ways we can’t even dream, and not for the better. Finally, she confessed that we need to learn, as conservatives, as believers, how to teach and translate the definition of marriage as God ordained it to the next generation. I got the sense that she is still wrestling with how to convey that message in a culturally relevant way, but she knows the importance. Read the rest of this entry »
Support for marriage in West Virginia (and nationwide) appears to be increasing as a substantial rate. This, in spite of a seemingly tireless press by special interest groups and politicians beset on preventing West Virginians from voting on which definition of marriage that will consent to be governed.
A year ago, the Family Policy Council of West Virginia commissioned a poll to determine the level of support for marriage as one man and one woman. According to those results, 73% of West Virginians at the time supported such a definition. After the launch of www.wv4marriage.com, we conducted another poll which indicated support for traditional marriage had increased by 13%.
Last week, some internal polling revealed that support for marriage nationwide has increased – including in West Virginia. According to a survey of 50,000 homes nationwide now exceeds 67%. In West Virginia, support for marriage as one man and one woman now tops 92%.
The debate over whether or not there is a nationwide effort to redefine marriage is over. There is no legitimate reason not to let the people of West Virginia vote on this important issue. Every legislator should defend the people’s right to vote on the definition of marriage.
To learn more about what you can do to support marriage in West Virginia, go to www.wv4marriage.com.
By Nathan A. Cherry
It’s always been an interesting thing to read the data coming from the supposedly unbiased studies conducted on various topics. Everything from teen pregnancy, drug use, and the “effects” of pornography, divorce, and abortion come flying out of news venues at seemingly unfathomable paces. And every study seems to say that these things are not harmful and no one is in immediate danger of anything.
Of particular interest to me are the “facts” and “data” concerning marriage that comes from the Obama media machine. Our president has said of course that he does not support same-sex marriage, but yet has also said he would sign legislation legalizing same –sex marriage; is that what we call hypocrisy?
If you only read studies from these sources one would think that same-sex marriage and raising children in a single parent, or single gender household is no big deal and that “everyone is doing it.” But the facts are much more interesting than the liberal lawmakers want you to know.
Let’s start with divorce. A recent study by the General Social Surveys says,
“Adults who grew up living with both biological parents are less likely ever to be divorced or separated than those who did not.”
The key word is “biological.” Yes it does matter to the overall, long-term health and well-being of a child to have their biological mom AND dad present and helping to rear them.
Let’s now move on to the same-sex marriage debate. Many have said that same-sex marriage is wildly popular and so overwhelming are the numbers that there is no choice but to legalize same-sex marriage in order to bring freedom to this large group of people. But, recently an ABC News story was quoted saying,
“Just under one percent of all couples in the U.S. — or 594,391 people — identify themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender.”
That’s right, just under one percent of all couples in the U.S. claim to be homosexual. And yet our government is pushing to have this group specially protected under hate crimes legislation and wants to redefine marriage just for them. Will the government push just as hard for every minority group in America? What about the polygamists? How about those in poly-amorous relationships? Or consider persons in incestuous relationships. Where will the government stop, and how will they justify denying those groups if the homosexual minority are given their “rights.”
Staying on the redefinition of marriage, we are told that there is overwhelming support for this across the United States. Let’s just suppose someone was not paying attention in the last election when three states, Arizona, Florida, and California all voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and would actually believe such a farcical statement. Consider this recent news out of Maine where their legislators, not the people themselves voted to allow same-sex marriage;
“The Stand for Marriage Coalition in Maine is asking for a question on the November ballot that would restore the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. To that end, they have turned in 100,000 petition signatures. They only needed 55,000 signatures to qualify. ‘As we’ve known for years, when this matter is made plain to the public there is huge resistance to it and opposition to it.’”
This seems to be the case almost absolutely across the board. Whenever people are given the chance to define marriage for themselves, they define it as one man and one woman. Perhaps this is why lawmakers are taking the vote out of the people’s hands; and shame on them for doing so.
This thinking is not confined to pastors, or ultra-conservatives. Even college professors that approach the study with an unbiased mind seem to come to the same conclusion, as in the case of a recent Princeton Law Professor that defended traditional marriage in the Wall Street Journal.
Robert George recently said, “Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining it will do not additional harm. I disagree. We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage. But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not the courts, who should debate and decide.”
And we here at the Family Policy Council whole-heartedly agree with Mr. George’s statement. This is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it. This is the time when the people, not legislatures and lawmakers, should be given the right, which is ultimately theirs under the Constitution, to decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is to be.
While perusing friend-of-the-FPCWV’s Facebook profile recently, I noticed his blog entry over at Areopagus.us. The title intrigued me and, with his permission, we now reproduce it here at the Engage Family Blog. The author, Derick Dickens, is an excellent writer and articulate thinker. I’m honored to call him a friend. If you like Derick’s blog, leave a comment encourage him to appear here with regularity. I think we’d all be better for it, don’t you?
Great Contradictions – Homeschooling and Traditional Marriage
by Derick Dickens
Society is full of inconsistencies. Take for instance the soft bias against homeschooling that is prevalent in our culture but the refusal of most of the same groups to acknowledge what studies have shown to be true, all because of a social agenda.
In the homeschooling argument there have been constant attacks that this method inhibits the socialization of children. Repeated often, people accept this as fact but there has never been a study to back up this assumption. Most cite the famous Larry Edward Shyers dissertation from the University of Florida, which shows homeschooled children are more socialized than their traditional school counterparts.
If, though, the issue is socialization, it is rather offensive that few if anyone outside of the Christian community discusses the socialization of children from non-traditional marriages. Time Magazine, in a recent article, noted:
“on every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others” (Time Magazine Cover Article, July 2, 2009, emphasis mine).
The article, though, does not stop there. Time Magazine recognizes the best situation for a child is a father and a mother united together in the same home, both giving care for their children. The socialization of children is inhibited in families where a father and a mother do not raise their children together.
Somerville, in 2007, noted:, “Children’s human rights also include the right to know their biological parents and, if at all possible, to be reared by them within their immediate and wider biological family If marriage involved only adults there is no good reason to oppose same-sex marriage. But, for the sake of children, I propose that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman.”
Somerville is not exactly coming about this debate from a Christian worldview or hatred towards non-traditional marriages. In fact, this article seems to be based merely on the statistical evidence and Somerville still leaves open the option for homosexual marriage. Yet, Somerville notes:
“Same-sex marriage advocates argue that children do not need both a mother and a father, and ‘genderless parenting’ is just as good or even better than opposite-sex parenting, including because all children are wanted children and don’t come into existence by ‘accident’. Research is increasingly indicating, however, that men and women parent differently (Lamb, 2004; Grossmann, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombik, Kindler, Scheuerer-Englisch & Zimmermann 2002; Rohner & Veneziano 2001; Swain, Lorberbaum, Kose, & Lane 2007; Wilcox, 2005, 2007). In addition, epigenetic studies that focus on the interaction of genes and the environment, (e.g. Weaver et al. 2004) show that certain genes in young mammals are imprinted (activated) by parental behaviour, but shut down for life if not imprinted within a very limited critical window period. At the least, then, an ethical precautionary principle means those arguing same-sex families are just as good for children should have the burden of proof” (Ibid, 2007).
Professor Adams noted this same idea in 2005, “children living in households with their married, biological parents are better off than other children” (Adams, 2005).
There is further and ample evidence with the vast majority of the research has shown that homeschoolers excel in socialization and that non-traditional families harm socialization. Despite the ample evidence, people still refuse to question non-traditional families’ potential harm to kids but inconsistently attack homeschooling whose evidence is overwhelmingly in support of them exceeding socially.
Most homeschoolers have faced the question, “What about socialization?” Few, if any, of these same people ever go to a divorced mother, a homosexual couple raising children, or a single parent family situation and ask them the same question, “What about socialization, don’t you worry about the long term impact on your kids?” Most of us would be deemed “narrow-minded”, “insensitive” or even “rude” if we were to approach a non-traditional family with such questions. Yet, as shown in this article, no evidence supports the idea that homeschoolers in general lack socialization and the vast majority of evidence says these other groups result in poor socialization of children.
This is another example of social agendas dominating the culture debates in our world. When evidence is so vast in either direction but ignored, we should begin to look into the motives of such groups. Either socialization is important to implicate these other issues or it is merely a Trojan Horse used to attack Homeschooling.
Adams, L. (2005, Summer2005). Privileging the Privileged? Child Well-Being as a Justification for State Support of Marriage. San Diego Law Review, 42(3), 881-887. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.
Somerville, M. (2007, November). Children?s human rights and unlinking child?parent biological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive technologies. Journal of Family Studies, 13(2), 179-201. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from E-Journals database.
Lebeda, S. (2007, April). Homeschooling: Depriving Children of Social Development?. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 16(1), 99-104. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
By Nathan A. Cherry
Have you ever been to Romania? Ever wanted to visit Romania? After today I have decided that not only do I want to visit Romania to have a conversation with their lawmakers, but, I would like every U.S. lawmaker to do the same. Why? Simply to get a better perspective on same-sex marriage.
Last week Romania enacted new legislation that creates a stronghold for traditional marriage in the European country. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, together with the Alliance for Romania’s Families helped secure passage of the bill.
Just listen to the sane, logical words of Peter Costea of the Alliance for Romania’s Families:
“At this time in history, we should be strengthening marriage, not tearing it down. Government officials take notice when the people make their will known. That’s what happened in Romania.”
Did you hear that Mr. Obama? Did you hear that talking heads in Washington, ACLU, liberal, left-leaning lawmakers in congress? He said that “government officials take notice when the people make their will known.” Well when will that start happening in the United States? (Let’s start in West Virginia where citizens want to vote for themselves on the definition of marriage in their state). Let’s recap.
In every poll and every time citizens are given the chance to vote they decidedly oppose same-sex marriage and its legalization. (Just check out the last vote in California, Arizona, and Florida). Not only that, but without question every citizen believes it is their duty to decide the definition of marriage in their state, not a judge, not lawmakers, the citizens. Just ask the citizens in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire if they would have liked to vote on this issue rather than watch activist judges and legislatures ignore them and make the decision for them.
So, in Romania the people voice their will and the lawmakers listen; it kind of sounds like a democracy to me. Maybe we should send our lawmakers over there for some lessons.
Let me add this last quote from this article just for those politicians and others who are strong supporters of looking abroad for examples of how we should be doing things in the U.S. (Which, by the way I am not in favor of and think is a silly practice):
“Americans told by same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates that the rest of the world considers the U.S. out of step when it comes to affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman need only point to examples like Romania to demonstrate that such an assumption is false: ‘Romania is one country where American judicial activists will find no support.’” (Click here for source of quote).
If only judicial activism found no support here in the United States.
The point always comes back to why? Why are so many so opposed to same-sex marriage? Sure, we can point to the moral aspect of it, but there’s more to it than even that. The point of contention for so many people is making homosexuals into a class of specially protected, and necessarily privileged, citizens. This is why many disagree with hate crimes bills – they say – because all citizens should be protected against crimes of any kind. Furthermore, when you strip people of their right to personal opinion, whether for or against, you remove their first amendment right to free speech, which is particularly devastating for Christians and Christian organizations.
Finally, perhaps the biggest sticking point is that most citizens do not believe that homosexuals simply want to be allowed to marry. Most citizens believe homosexuals seek universal endorsement of their lifestyle from everyone; which categorically contradicts the conscience and beliefs of many. I personally don’t think it will stop at marriage. Just consider what is taking place in the UK, where recently a lesbian couple won a lawsuit awarding them tax-payer funding for their IVF treatment!
Are you kidding me? If homosexuals just want to “live a normal life like everyone else,” as they claim. Then pay for your own treatment like everyone else does. Get pregnant like everyone else does. Or is that the point? Is it really fair and balanced to award treatment to couples who choose a lifestyle which makes pregnancy impossible? When thousands of infertile couples are in desperate need of treatment, is it really fair to pay special attention to couples that deliberately leave out key ingredients in the procreation process? Something is amiss.
Read the LifeSiteNews.com article for a profound and wise look into the absolute necessity of fathers AND mothers on a child’s health and well-being.
Further Food for Thought: “Romania Stiff-Arms Same-Sex ‘Marriage’”
“A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.” – An excellent article on where the issue began and how we have arrived at this point.
Read the newly adopted Romanian Civil Code, which will take effect on January 1, 2010, here.
By Nathan A. Cherry
I came across this story recently by Caitlin Flanagan, “Is There Hope for the American Marriage,” and highly recommend that you take a few minutes to read it. Ms. Flanagan did an outstanding job of showing the vital merits marriage contains for families, and especially children.
The article ends by pondering what children will grow up to be like in a world where they observe adults jump in and out of casual flings one right after the other, or just never take the time to get married and live together for years and years while periodically taking part in their kids life. What hope of character development is there for kids who see little to no character in the adult influences in their lives?
And yet it is these principal adults in the lives of children that make all the difference in the world. The article states that,
“On every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.”
Yes you did read that correctly. Sociology has repeatedly concluded that children from two-parent, intact homes outperform children from other home structures. You would think that if science continually concludes a particular outcome, and if society bears the proof of that outcome, that people, especially lawmakers, would get a clue and start backing the evidence.
But let’s not stop there; let’s move on a little farther in the article to a section that will surely anger feminists and homosexuals alike. Sociologist and author, and most notably feminist, Mariah Kefalas responded to the need for having a father at home:
“As a feminist, I didn’t want to believe it. Women always tell me, ‘I can be a mother and a father to a child,’ but it’s not true. Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. The mom may not need that man but her children still do.”
Just a bit later in the article is a fact that a traditionalist such as myself is keenly aware of, but that others are not convinced of. A Princeton sociologist and single mother, Sara McLanahan, concluded her study of the long-tem effects a single parent home has on children by saying:
“Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background.”
So at what point do we say “Damn the overwhelming amount of evidence because we want to do it our way regardless of the consequences!”? That is exactly what a person is saying when they declare that a same-sex marriage or single parent home can provide the same things as a traditional two-parent home. The evidence absolutely does not support that outcome. No, the evidence says that families, especially kids thrive and succeed far better when mom AND dad are both present and committed to making the home what it was intended to be.
Say what you like, but evidence is evidence. The overwhelming body of evidence that exists to support the traditional two-parent home as the best environment for children is so large that only a truly narrow-minded person would dare ignore it.