This week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the most pivotal human rights issue since it grossly erred in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision. The Obama administration directed the U.S. solicitor general to submit a brief to fabricate a hereto-unknown constitutional right to redefine the definition of marriage away from a husband and a wife. This effort contradicts the right of Californians who amended their constitution to preserve the tradition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years before formal governments or religions. If the Obama administration gets its way, the method we assign parentage to children will evaporate.
Currently, the law grants fatherhood to the legal husband of a wife, with motherhood granted to the woman who gave birth. Biology is essential to parenthood. A child must be entitled to a relationship with a mother and father. So-called “same-sex marriage” denies this connection with at least one biological parent. The natural attachment of husband-and-wife parentage ensures the children’s connection with genetic, cultural and social heritage.
We know by modern psychology, sociology and instinct that mothers and fathers are different, making unique contributions to the raising of children. Two very good mothers do not make up for the purposeful loss of a child’s father. Boys will respond and mature differently with the absence of a father than a mother, and vice-versa.
Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Children cannot protect their natural rights on their own, so we must. There is no other institution that will protect children in the absence of a biological mother and father. With the redefinition of marriage will come the government’s requirement that “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2” and/or “Spouse 3” will be the legal parents of a child as a norm, not as the extraordinary case of adoptions, thus disregarding the biological parents’ rights.
More than two legal parents will occur, as has happened in Canada. Children will become a commodity to be legally contested rather than biologically traced. Do we really want to trust the government to decide parentage?
If marriage is no longer an opposite-sex structure for the public purpose of marriage, then only the nonessential private purposes will remain. Legal unions can protect adults’ rights who want to live together; traditional marriage is the only protection for children’s rights.
We have a moral obligation and societal interest in the stability of a child’s parents’ union, as they have a right to have a relationship with a mother and father. Traditional marriage is the preferred place to procreate children with their best chances of emotionally developing into a sound adult. Numerous broken families can attest to the loss of a mother or father from their lives. This has been borne out ever since no-fault divorces become commonplace.
Pray that the Supreme Court decides with wisdom and justice for the children!