Spring, 2013—In Defense of Marriage and the Family: A Matter of Language, Love, and Liberty

 

It has been many months since I first started this blog. This particular entry is the first of many such posts which will come in the upcoming years. As promised on the descriptive page which defines this blog’s purpose, this entry will mark the beginning of my personal efforts to use this blog to

1-Help people get to know me and the philosophy that guides my life—constitutional conservatism.

2-Provide commentary on the ongoing developments around us and in my own personal studies of historical and political subjects.

 

3-Make others aware of the timeless struggle—to help them understand the ongoing conflict between Good and Evil.

During the past few months, as I have formulated ideas about how I would go about publishing entries for my blog, I eventually decided to post something for every season of the year; in this manner, I will be able to write on a subject I consider to be of great contemporary importance as I see fit and as I experience that topic or issue in my own life and personal studies.

For this season of spring, 2013, I have decided to share my thoughts concerning the family unit and its traditional, proven, and important role in our society; additionally, I would like to express my opposition to any and all attempts currently underway to alter the definition of marriage, diminish its place in civil society, or destroy its ability to perform its most important function—the raising of future generations upon principles of righteousness and good citizenship.

I pray that God will bless me with the ability to effectively explain myself in this blog post as I attempt to teach about the family—the most important social unit in all time and eternity. I earnestly hope that you, the reader, will catch a glimpse of how important the family is to the success and prosperity of our world community. I hope that this blog post will give you an even more vigorous desire to defend traditional marriage’s definition, integrity, and relevance.

An inspired man once said that the “most important…work that you will ever do will be the work you do within the walls of your own home.” The family—and the home life that accompanies it—can be the most important factor in shaping individual lives for good; the family unit can be the best social arrangement for individuals to enjoy the blessings of happiness, love, and affection. In the fullest sense, people experience many of life’s greatest joys and sorrows within the family. This is how individuals learn and grow to become the best they can be. The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed and safeguarded by marriage and the family. Families are designed to facilitate the successful raising of children into responsible adult citizens who contribute to their communities in positive ways. Since the beginning of human history, marriages between men and women that lead to the establishment of family units have proven to be of irreplaceable worth to human civilization and society.

There is no document anywhere that better explains my personal beliefs regarding the family unit than “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which contains a pronouncement of doctrinal beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member. On September 23rd, 1995, Church president Gordon B. Hinckley read the following in a general meeting of the Church’s organization for women, the Relief Society:

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. 'Children are an heritage of the Lord' (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

The proclamation quoted above is truly the best definition and defense of marriage that I have ever read or studied; I wholeheartedly put my endorsement and support behind it and the principles it expresses. I wish to highlight that marriage truly can only be defined as existing between man and woman—a marital relationship, by traditional definition, cannot exist in any other form.

Recently, as I have continued my college studies these past few months at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, I have had a chance to reflect upon developments in the United States that have been a cause of great concern to me. Beginning in March and April of this year, I have watched with dismay as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, has come under heavy attack in the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor (as of this blog post’s publication, the fate of DOMA is still to be decided). This came after last year’s announcement from U.S. President Barack Obama that he supports “gay marriage.” As the first sitting U.S. president to do this, President Obama has joined the ranks of public officials who have chosen to speak out in recent months against the traditional definition of marriage. Additionally, on November 6th, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.

These and other developments have proven to me that a large cross-section of the American population suffers from a severe misunderstanding of the issue at hand. While I still believe that most Americans feel that the family unit plays an important role in society, most Americans do not seem to see how altering the definition of marriage leads to the destruction of the traditional family unit. I would like to address some of these misunderstandings.

The first misunderstanding involves an issue of semantics; the meaning of the terms “family” and “marriage” have unfortunately been allowed to degrade into chaotic leftist misinterpretations that have become acceptable in contemporary society. Many on the political, cultural, and social left argue that “family” can be applied to any group of individuals who love each other; marriage has acquired a similar status. Leftists excel at winning the language game against conservatives. Often, this results in conservatives losing on important issues long before anyone realizes what has happened. On the subject of marriage, this problem is illustrated by the simple fact that we often go about our days and hear talk of “opposite-sex marriage” and “hetero-marriage.” While conservatives like me are quick to defend the meanings behind terms such as these, Rush Limbaugh, the most prominent conservative commentator of our time, argues that when we allow ANY modifiers to appear before the word “marriage” we shamefully bastardize a word that represents something very sacred and special—something that doesn’t and shouldn’t need a modifier at all.

Near the end of this past winter semester at BYU, I tuned into Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show one day to hear him speaking on this very subject. It was a revelatory experience for me because it helped me realize just how far-gone our society has become—and how important it is that we conservatives remember that institutions like family and marriage have eternal definitions that do not change or alter with the whims of popular culture. Instead, they are sacred institutions with tried records of success when it comes to building up individuals, communities, and nations.

I would like to share the transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s monologue on this subject. Please note that whenever he refers to the “Republicans” or the Republican political party, he is generally referring to conservatives; similarly, “Democrats” or the Democratic political party represent leftists, in general. Also note that I have edited and shortened the transcripts to highlight the most relevant passages:

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

So far as I'm concerned, once we started talking about "gay marriage," "traditional marriage," "opposite-sex marriage," "same-sex marriage," "hetero-marriage," we lost. It was over. It was just a matter of time. Once you decide to modify the word “marriage”, then the other side has won, or at least they're 90% of the way home.

Marriage evolved as the best way to unite men and women in raising a family and in cohabitating a life. It's not perfect. The divorce rate's what it is. But it evolved with a purpose. It was not a creation of a bunch of elitists wanting to deny people a good time. It was not created as something to deny people "benefits," but it became that once we started bastardizing the definition. But discrimination is not an issue, and it never was. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition -- solely, by definition -- same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been.

Let me give you an example.

If I were to say, "The Obama family has more rights than I do. Obama's family, which hasn't been elected to anything, get millions of dollars in government benefits. They are globally admired in a way that I'm not. My self-esteem is wounded. The world loves the Obamas and they don't love me. Therefore, I want to be considered an Obama. From now on, I want to be an Obama so that people respect me and love me -- and so that I, too, can take a vacation every month on a big 747.

"So that I, too, can have access to the federal Treasury, I want to be an Obama. I want to be Rush Hudson Obama the First. It's not fair that I can't be an Obama. Look at all the benefits the Obamas have! By the way, the Obamas, only one of them got elected to anything, but look at all the benefits they get that I don't get. Look at all the admiration that they get that they don't get, and look at all the media fawning they get I don't get.

"Don't tell me that I can't be an Obama just because I'm not an Obama! Just because I'm not a member of the family doesn't mean I can't be an Obama! I want to be an Obama, and I want to have all the benefits Obama gets. I want to be loved. I want to be rich without having to use any of my own money. I want to be able to blame everybody else for what's going wrong and I want to be able to get away with not being blamed for anything. I really, really want to be an Obama, and they won't let me!

"They're discriminating against me!

"Being an Obama would make me happy. The Declaration says we have the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Well, I would be happy if I was an Obama -- and they won't let me be an Obama! So the law has to change. The law has to change so that I can become an Obama. Just change the definition of what a family is, and I could be an Obama. It's easy. The whole definition of a family is perverted in this country. Why can't everybody be a Rockefeller? Why can't everybody be a Kennedy?

"Why can't everybody be an Obama?

"I want to be an Obama!

"That'd make me happy. I'd probably be a loving person if I were an Obama!"

Well, this is what we're hearing about marriage.

"I want to be happy. It's not affecting anybody else. It wouldn't matter to anybody. Pursuit of happiness, love. Don't tell me that I already have all the same legal rights as Michelle has. That's not good enough. I want to 'feel' like an Obama, and so the law has to change so that I can say, 'I am an Obama.' And if you think that that's absurd, if you think that my wanting to be an Obama for all the reasons that I've stated are wrong -- and if you think that my feelings are being hurt because I can't be an Obama and if you think my being offended because I can't be an Obama -- you're a bigot!

"You're a hater. You're trying to deny me something I want that wouldn't hurt anybody else. It wouldn't affect anybody else. I just want to be an Obama, and the fact that this society isn't liberated enough and is not kind enough to let me be an Obama means it has to change even if I have to take this all the way the Supreme Court. 'But wait, Rush. You're not an Obama.' It doesn't matter! I want to be one, and it's this stupid country's problem and fault that I can't. I'm unhappy, and I'm miserable, and I'm discriminated against. Look at all I'm missing out on!

"Really, folks! Look at all that I am not getting because I can't be an Obama. So I think the law has to change, and I think we have to change the definition of a family so that I can be an Obama."

I'm just illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Just trying to point out what happens if we lose definitions.

END TRANSCRIPT

I wholeheartedly agree with Rush Limbaugh’s assessment of this issue; one of the primary reasons that conservatives like me lose so frequently when arguing over family and marriage is because we have lost the battle of language. While losing this battle does not alter the mindset of battle-hardened “culture warriors” like myself (to whom language isn’t always as much of a priority as it should be), most Americans are particularly sensitive to language and how it influences an argument. For example, how many people have you heard say that they are “against” gay people, that they are “homophobic,” or that they hate homosexuals? If they really mean what they say, then they are most certainly taking the moral low road. However, I’ll wager that most Americans who express attitudes like this don’t really understand what it is they are saying; they are failing to succinctly express their opposition to any changes in the meaning of “family” and “marriage” or the increased institutionalization or validation of perverse alternative lifestyles. For this reason, many Americans of moderate political beliefs see conservatives as nothing more than bigoted hatemongers who oppose the extension of what the Left sees as civil and personal liberties.

If the right wing of America hopes to recapture the momentum in the fight to protect families and marriages, they must learn to recapture the language of the argument. Conservatives like me must refuse to budge on the definition of these institutions. We must help people understand that the traditional meanings of these terms are not socio-political inventions but natural, time-honored customs that accurately reflect normal human romantic and reproductive relationships. At the same time, we must make it clear that we do not oppose people but lifestyles; we must make it clear that families and marriages can only involve one particular kind of sexual lifestyle.

The second misunderstanding concerns the purpose of marriage. Our generation has forgotten the relationship between marriage and the family; we’ve forgotten that the purpose of marriage IS the family. And the family is love.

Nowadays, we have all become familiar with the cries of the left wing that issues like “gay marriage” and “gay rights” are about love and the privilege to bestow personal affection on anyone we choose. What is interesting about these arguments is that they ignorantly assume that love of ANY kind or degree is enough to qualify as a marital relationship. These arguments are foolish because love truly exists on many levels for different situations. For example, while a man may love his dog, it cannot be the same kind of love that a man can have for his brother. Likewise, the love that a man has for his brother cannot be the same kind of love that a man has for his girlfriend. There are different kinds of love; love can come in the form of professional mentoring, friendship, the loyalty of a pet, or even passionate sexual relationships.

There are many forms of love. However, I would submit that love exists in different degrees. I would also submit that these degrees build upon one another, and that some degrees of love are higher than others. Many on the Left might disagree with that statement. Yet, for all of recorded human history, the majority of humanity’s experience on this planet has seen the institution of marriage concerned about one—and only one—degree of love. Marriage is about the HIGHEST form of love: familial love.

On April 10^th of this year, I had the privilege of attending a forum presented by the Wheatley Institution at Brigham Young University. The forum was a discussion with the authors of a book entitled What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. The authors, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, came to BYU to offer a non-Latter-day Saint perspective on the issues of marriage and family. Their conclusion, after many years of study, was that the institution of marriage can serve society best only when it remains strictly limited to heterosexual human sex-pairs.

On this occasion, Sherif Girgis, a highly distinguished student of ethics and philosophy at Princeton, Yale Law School, and the University of Oxford, gave an incredibly insightful lecture which explained the psychological and physiological benefits of “heterosexual marriage.” I confess that I understood very little of the details he used to explain his point. I only remember that Mr. Girgis really brought home to me that marriage IS NOT just about personal affection, no matter how strong it may be. His point was that even if a man and a woman loved each other, their love, by itself, would not constitute a sufficient reason for the establishment of a marital relationship. Mr. Girgis emphasized that the ONLY degree of love which could possibly count as worthy of marriage is that which comes when two people desire to create a family together. He talked a lot about sexual satisfaction, the human need to recreate and reproduce, the psycho-sexual bond that develops in a healthy sexual bond-pair, and a whole bunch of other things that I didn’t really understand. What I did understand is that marriage is NOT just about romantic love. Romantic love is not the highest form of love; by itself, it does not serve as an adequate drive to keep a marriage alive and healthy. Mr. Girgis’s main point was that marriage MUST lead to a desire to create a family. His point was that marriage and family are interconnected. There cannot be one without the other. Without children as the goal, a marriage does not serve its true purpose. The creation of families is what gives marital relationships their sense of permanency. The permanency of raising children is what separates familial love from mere romantic love. Without familial love—the kind of love that comes from a sexual relationship focused on reproduction and the raising of children—marriage, by traditional definition, cannot and should not exist. Marriages are designed for the creation of families. Without a dedicated man and woman to seal the deal on such a permanent relationship, the association is subject to the whims of either of the two partners and loses vitality.

In this way, it can be seen that marriage fails to serve its true purpose (the raising of family units) unless it is based on permanent familial love. Without this highest form of love, human relationships degrade into dangerously expendable experiences. Without family love, human natures become more selfish and self-centered. People are meant to grow in their capacity to love. Without the maximum (and optimal) provision for love that marriages and families give, individuals start to base their relationships upon exploitation and short-term advantages. In this lies the seed of chaos for social relationships of all kinds and all degrees.

Without marital love to strive for, human beings quickly lose their best chance for maximum happiness, contentment, and joy. And while it is true that not all human beings are destined to create families of their own, it is still true that the family—as an institution—is the backbone of any successful civilization.

Ryan T. Anderson, one of the authors of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and a William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed his colleague’s argument and expounded upon the important tie that exists between the purpose of marriage and families. As the United States undergoes divisive discussion of the “gay rights” issue and the definition of marriage, Mr. Anderson encouraged those of us in the audience to carefully consider what would happen if the concept of marital and familial love was destroyed by those on the left wing. Anderson explained why, contrary to the libertarian viewpoint, governments should be VERY concerned about the definition of marriage. He described how the definition of marriage had changed in the eyes of U.S. courts throughout the years. In the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, courts began to change how divorces were issued. In olden times, divorces were only granted to couples who suffered from adultery, abuse, or abandonment. When the courts gave up on such standards, the divorce rate in America skyrocketed along with a depressing handful of statistics which increase the number of broken homes and the childhood delinquency rate. Because of changed divorce laws, marriage was subtlety redefined with a lost sense of permanency; inadvertently, the courts made it easier for marriages to break apart. Anderson further explained how the latest round of “gay rights” protestations threatened to totally destroy familial love by eliminating strict definitions of marriage altogether; if marriages ceased to be defined as being between man and woman, the institution (and the degree of love fostered by it) would lose not only its permanency but its purpose as well. Anderson ended his presentation on a poignant note: without the strict definition of marriage enforced and recognized by government, there would be no institution left in America specifically dedicated to the raising of children.

That is precisely what current generations are misunderstanding: marriages and families must be permanent; they must be permanent because a stable home life with both parents present is the best environment for the proper raising of children.

The purpose of marriage is the establishment of families. Families can only be established and maintained upon principles of the HIGHEST form of love: familial love. Marriages and families are defined by this kind of love. It is the kind of love necessary for the raising of future generations. Without permanency, marriages and families will fail to produce human offspring who are given the opportunities to become the best they can be. Children who are not raised in traditional home environments CAN succeed in life, but that result becomes far more likely when they are raised by a husband and wife who perform their marital duties with an earnest desire to sacrifice for each other and for their children. That is the kind of love which nurtures families. That is the kind of love which creates peaceful and harmonious societies. That is the kind of love which so many of us are now forgetting.

As conservatives, it is our job to remind others of the dire need our world has for this kind of love.

The final misunderstanding concerning families and marriage that I would like to address before I close deals with the issue of freedom. With all the talk going around about “gay marriage” and how those on the Left are saying we need to abandon our “old-fashioned prejudices” and allow people to be free to love who they want to love, I have been pretty discouraged. Recently, I heard something on the Rush Limbaugh radio program that made the back of my neck tingle; it had a powerful effect on me because it was truth, pure and unadulterated. Rush quoted from a book written by Os Guinness:

 

"Americans today are heedlessly pursuing a vision of freedom that is short-lived and suicidal. Once again, freedom without virtue, leadership without character, business without trust, law without customs, education without meaning and medicine, science and technology without human considerations can end only in disaster."

I share this quote because it helped me understand more about my personal beliefs; sometimes, it’s nice to know WHY something is true instead of simply knowing that it IS true. What am I talking about? I’m talking about how we Americans have completely forgotten what true freedom really is. Liberals on the left go around identifying groups like women, Hispanics, Blacks, gays and lesbians, old people, young people, poor people, fat people…they go around labeling these groups as “victims” who are “oppressed” and need to be “liberated” by government programs. Further to the right, we have libertarians who argue that freedom is simply defined as allowing people to do whatever they want without any outside interference.

The truth of the matter is that freedom is so much more than either of these narrow definitions. Indeed, if we limit ourselves to thinking of freedom in these ways, our society will eventually self-destruct. We conservatives understand this principle: that virtue is the difference between freedom and tyranny on the liberal left and order and anarchy on the libertarian right. Without a culture of virtuous individuals striving to be the best they can be, freedom will mean absolutely nothing.

How does this apply to gay marriage? Advocates of gay marriage claim that they want to protect the freedom of gays and lesbians to love whoever they want to love. They are willing to destroy the institution of marriage—an institution as old as humanity itself; an institution that has proven its worth for thousands of years—in order to protect the so-called “freedom” of gays and lesbians. But if we allow gays and lesbians to have their relationships officially recognized by the state, we will be taking a major step in the direction of societal suicide. We will have freedom without virtue.

In other words, we will ultimately have no freedom at all.

Ezra Taft Benson, the thirteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that “marriage, home, and family are established by God as part of His divine plan for the blessing of His children. The richest blessings and deepest joys of this life and the life to come are tied up with the performance of these sacred duties…The family is the most effective place to instill lasting values in its members. Where family life is strong and based on principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ, problems do not as readily appear.”

If you are still reading this blog post, I wish to close by assuring you that you do not need to be a Mormon—or even a Christian—to understand the importance of marriage and the family in our world. More than ever before, there is a need for “lasting values” of goodness to be instilled in the rising generation. As the world’s problems become more pronounced and are confronted by good men and women of all stripes and backgrounds, there will always exist a need for common bonds of love and loyalty, civic duty and good citizenship, and communal charity and understanding that only the institution of the family can instill and propagate.

Marriage is the beginning of family. It is the safeguard which ensures that families are established upon permanent principles of devotion and determination that will ensure that all family members are protected when times get tough. Marriage is not just about personal affection. It is about permanent, constructive love. It is about sacrifice. It is about duty and commitment. Without these characteristics, the institution of marriage is cheapened and destroyed. Without these characteristics, the deeply-needed rewards of successful family ties are denied to future generations who will be handicapped when facing the world’s problems.

I want to assure you that marriage and family are part of God’s original plan for mankind. Conservatives —religious or not—understand that valued traditions deserve to be defended against the dangerous experiments of the Left. We are living today in a time when experimentation threatens to destabilized everything that mankind has created for himself over many eras of struggle. The disintegration of the traditional understandings of family and marriage will only lead to a similar disintegration of civic virtue and social values. The current debate was effectively summarized by Ron Sider, a Canadian-born theologian and social activist, when he said

“Most people assume that if something is legal, it is moral—or at least not immoral. What is legal soon will become normal. Every society requires an ongoing supply of babies who grow up to be good citizens. Every civilization has known what contemporary sociologists now demonstrate: Children grow best into wholesome adults when they live with their biological mother and father. Marriage law is a crucial way in which the state promotes the sound nurturing of the next generation of citizens.

“Legalizing gay marriage would weaken the connection between marriage and procreation—and the connection between biological parents and their biological children—which is why court cases in support of gay marriage typically downgrade the role of procreation.”

As we wait for the results of United States v. Windsor and as we watch as public officials, government agencies, and others in positions of influence allow the standards of public virtue to erode, we must remember that marriage and family are institutions worth fighting for. They are worth defending against the attacks of the Left. They are worth taking the fight to the courts and the halls of government and the forums of public discussion. And while conservatives will most likely find themselves vastly outnumbered in this fight, we must remember what is really at stake in this fight. We must remember that the laws of the land will shape the beliefs of the people. Beliefs shape behavior. An unsound law of marriage will breed mistaken views—not just of marriage, but of parenting, common moral and religious beliefs, even friendship—that will harm the body politic as a whole. Indeed, it will spell disaster for the human interests of all.

--Christopher Peterson, May 31st, 2013