Support the Marriage Protection Amendment 23 March, 2009Posted by David Anderson in Uncategorized.
Tags: family, marriage
I supported the current law in Delaware which clarified that marriages recognized in our state are exclusively between a man and a woman. Now I support SB 27 which will make that age old principle constitutional law. Court decisions in few states have shown that the social engineers do not respect the laws of every state and the federal government. The only way to protect the collective wisdom of the ages is constitutional law. 30 states have done this regarding marriage. It is time for Delaware to begin the process of a Constitutional amendment. The Delaware process is slow and cumbersome. This means we can’t wait until a crisis is on our door step.
Some are making the wild argument that we shouldn’t pass a constitutional amendment keeping the status quo (which has existed our entire American history) because it would “using the constitution to deprive people of rights”. That would be like saying passing a law against bank robbery is depriving me of my money. If it was never mine in the first place, I can not be deprived of it. Same sex marriage never existed so keeping the status quo does not take anyone’s rights away. We are protecting the right of the people to make decisions and not a social engineer in a black robe in another state.
Some wonder why we need an amendment since we have a very well written defense of marriage law. I might have agreed that we didn’t a few years ago, but events have overtaken that point of view. Judges in this state may have to deal with divorces from Massachusetts or Connecticut. Without constitutional guidance, our judges could bring legal complexity and confusion to this state. The clear will of the people could be compromised. It happened in California and Maryland is grappling with this issue right now. Leadership is not about ducking your head down and hoping a problem doesn’t come to you. It is about being proactive.
Some wonderful people have bought into the argument that marriage as currently constituted is discriminatory because it is only between the sexes and does not include people of the same sex. That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law. Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam instead of the bar and be an attorney? Isn’t there some law involved in it? That’s silly, you say. They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing. Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples serve the same functions in society. Marriage serves a unique role because it fulfills a unique responsibility. It was developed to provide a stable, recognized structure to build a family. It has worked throughout human history. It’s success deserves preservation.
Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way. They complete each other. Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other. Emotionally, they are made to balance each other. Spiritually, they are made to complete each other. Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species. Our species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality. It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another. We called it marriage. It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.
Around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is the bed rock of human civilization.
We the people of Delaware need to ensure our voices aren’t drowned out by the judicial social engineers This is why I will be at marriage rally at legislative hall, 1 pm Thursday. This is why I urge you call or email your legislators to support SB 27 (The marriage protection amendment).