By Victoria
Cobb, President
The Family Foundation of Virginia
The attack on
the definition of marriage is never ceasing, so neither is our work.
In late May, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, covering Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico, ruled that the federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), legislation protecting the definition of marriage that was
signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was unconstitutional. The
decision by that court threatens not only the federal DOMA, but the definition
of marriage, both constitutional and by statute, in 42 states.
The decision has
been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Earlier this
month, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli joined 14 other state Attorneys
General in filing an amicus (“Friend of the Court”) brief urging the Supreme
Court to review the First Circuit’s decision. Because the Obama
administration has refused to do its responsibility and defend federal law, the
U.S. House of Representatives has taken on that duty.
In the brief,
the fifteen AG’s present decades of law and legal precedent pertaining to the
states’ interest in benefiting heterosexual marriage because of children. The
brief says, “The choice to promote traditional marriages is based on an
understanding that civil marriage recognition arises from the need to encourage
biological parents to remain together for the sake of their children. It
protects the only procreative relationship that exists and
makes it more likely that unintended children, among the weakest members of
society, will be cared for.”
It goes on to
state, “This ideal does not disparage the suitability of alternative
arrangements where non-biological parents have legal responsibility for
children. But these relationships are exactly that—alternatives to the model.
States may rationally conclude that, all things being equal, it is better for
the biological parents also to be the legal parents, and that marriage promotes
that outcome.”
Thomas Messner
of the Heritage Foundation puts it this way:
Individuals
marry based on various private interests. The public interest in
marriage, in contrast, is based directly on the role that marriage plays in
creating and raising the next generation. Same-sex marriage breaks
the essential connection between marriage, children, and the mothers and
fathers who create them.
Same-sex
marriage also puts the law on the wrong side of reality by claiming that
marriage is something other than what it is: the union of husband and wife. Many
kinds of relationships are meaningful and valuable to the individuals involved
and even to the broader public. But that does not make them
marriages. It is not irrational or bigoted for the law to recognize
that marriage is a unique kind of relationship deserving a unique kind of
status.
Virginians,
understanding the preciousness of marriage and its integral role in the raising
of children, voted to add an amendment to the state Constitution defining
marriage in 2006. But the fact that same-sex marriage advocates are 0-30 at the
state ballot box is no deterrent to their aggression, and has in fact fueled
their anti-religious fervor. The Family Foundation will continue to
stand in the gap with those elected officials who stand for marriage and
religious liberty to ensure that your values are protected!
Posts
