Tearing Down Marriage

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases concerning whether states will remain free to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. The only way one can establish the unconstitutionality of male-female marriage laws is to adopt a genderless, adult-centric view of the institution; in other words, to establish that the vision of marriage our law has long applied is wrong and that the Constitution requires a different vision.

Gene Schaerr and Ryan Anderson spoke recently at the Heritage Foundation about marriage. This video is about an hour long, but if you consider this issue important (which you should), it’s well worth the time.

As Anderson points out, if marriage was just about romance and who loves who, we could easily take government out of the marriage equation. There would be absolutely zero practical reason for government to be involved in marriage.

Ted Cruz 2016


But that isn’t what marriage is about; never has been, and never will be.

The reason the state is involved in marriage is because the union of a man and a woman can (and usually does) produce a child (something the “union” of two men or two women can never, ever do). And a child deserves both a mother and a father.

Why? As study after study after study shows (and as testimony from children of homosexuals shows), a home where the mother and father of a child are present is hands-down the absolute best environment for ensuring the healthy development of the child and the child’s best chance at success in life.

This is what Barack Obama himself has admitted:

We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

Anderson also said pointed out states that have attempted to redefine marriage have seen their marriage rates decline by a minimum of 5% afterward, while the national marriage rate stayed the same. The institutions of marriage and family are already fractured badly as it is, with the taxpayers picking up the tab for $12 billion in consequences of broken homes. We don’t need to further undermine the stability of marriage and family–not for the individual pain and suffering caused to each of our nation’s children, not for society as a whole

As the body of evidence about this Leftist social experiment grows, we are beginning to see that (surprise, surprise) not only is homosexual parenting not as good as that from the mother and the father, it is worse. That should come as no surprise, knowing that monogamy in the homosexual community (even among relationships where “monogamy” is claimed) is almost non-existent, leading to an unstable home life and a parent who is more interested in feeding their crotch than they are in the needs of the child. Such an environment also deliberately robs the child of either a mother or a father–both of which are needed to provide the balance required for a child to develop in a healthy manner. And speaking of health, the health problems associated with homosexual behavior (vastly elevated rates of AIDS, other STDs, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, etc.) deter from a healthy home life for children.

For those who are interested in preserving innocent human life and minimizing abortions, this further assault on marriage and family is likely to increase the rate of abortion, as well.

Schaerr shreds the outrageous claims that the 14th Amendment and the “equal protection” clause can be hijacked to authorize counterfeit marriage. As he recounts, the 14th Amendment was crafted to prevent Democrats from denying to black Americans the full rights enjoyed by every other American. Especially in light of the fact that homosexuals already have the same right to marry as anyone else (subject to the exact same requirements as everyone else), can you really imagine the president and congress who passed the 14th Amendment intending for the legislation to justify claiming that two men sodomizing one another on a regular basis MUST be called “marriage”?

And intent is of paramount importance when considering the application of every law, as the founders pointed out:

The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. – Thomas Jefferson

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. – Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

And again, as Schaerr points out, several homosexual men have married women, and the fact that they have married without any interference from or attempt by the state to stop them from marrying proves that the claim that homosexuals are being denied the right to marry is a complete lie. The equal protection cause of the 14 Amendment doesn’t have any applicability at all in this issue because unlike the Democrats’ beloved Jim Crow laws, marriage law allows any qualified man and woman to marry, regardless of their “sexual orientation.” They are subject to the same requirements that any American is held to: that your marriage partner must be consenting, of legal age, not married to someone else, not a close relative, and a member of the opposite sex. Those are the requirements for everyone, so everyone is treated equally. Homosexuals have already been marrying subject to those same requirements for many years without a problem.

Further, Schaerr discusses how this issue has the potential to undermine prohibitions against polygamy–something our nation has already recognized as harmful to marriage and family, and has banned. If you make the argument (as homosexual activists do) that you should be able to “marry” someone just because you feel affection for them, then there is no reason for most of the marriage and sexual prohibitions in civilized society.


Schaerr expands on the growing evidence (surprise, surprise) that homosexual parenting is bad for children. Why, you might ask, would children fare even worse with a “married” homosexual couple than with an “unmarried” couple?  You might think that at least the atmosphere of stability afforded by the committed state of a “marriage” would be felt by the child and translate into better outcomes.

Well, ignoring for a moment that monogamy is almost unknown in the homosexual community even among “married” couples,
Gene Schaerr writing at the Daily Signal offers a good idea that makes a lot of sense:

The reasons for the disparity aren’t clear. Perhaps a parent’s marriage to a same-sex partner clearly signals to the child that she will likely never achieve her hope of one day being raised by the two people who brought her into the world, thereby triggering the trauma that increases the child’s risk of depression, unhappiness and fear.  But given this study, at best it is uncertain whether in the aggregate marriage will really benefit the children of same-sex couples at all.

In the end, there is no practical or moral reason whatsoever to redefine marriage so it can be counterfeited. There is every reason to protect marriage, for the good of society and it’s individual members–especially the youngest members who are least able to protect and provide for themselves.

We must not allow the barbarians (many of whom have infiltrated our own government) to tear down the institution of marriage. The time for defiance and civil disobedience from good American citizens has arrived–toward assaults on marriage and “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” that have already occurred, and toward any that may be perpetrated against the American people in the future.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    And, of course, all evidence — however solid and well-documented — that “gay marriage” is not beneficial will be flatly ignored and dismissed, as is all evidence that homosexuality is not normal or healthy. Many of those denying it likely know it’s true, but the only factor that will matter to them is that it is inconvenient to their wants.

    • Thisoldspouse

      What’s really tragic is that the evidence will get out and be acknowledge AFTER the radical new laws are ensconced, like the military’s dilemma of increased sexual assault and demoralization AFTER the homosexualization of the military became official.

      Of course, none of that will result in a reversal of course.

  • franklinb23

    “Anderson also said pointed out states that have attempted to redefine marriage have seen their marriage rates decline by a minimum of 5% afterward, while the national marriage rate stayed the same”

    Is there a link somewhere?

    Hawaii has the second highest marriage rate in the nation, and Vermont is fifth. Vermont’s allowed gay marriage since 2009.

    Given that 37 states allow gay marriage, for all of these states to decline by at least 5% while the national average remains the same, the remaining 13 states would have to be increasing in marriages by at least 14% (or thereabouts).

    That seems unlikely, but if it’s true, I’d like to know.

    (Very roughly since we’re not considering population size):
    (((37*.95)+(13x))/50) = 1 (constant of 100%)
    x = 1.1423

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      It only makes sense. Marriage rates have been on the decline for some time anyway, with the devaluing of marriage by heterosexuals. With counterfeit marriage being forced on most states by judicial activists, marriage means even less, so some people are no doubt asking themselves why they should bother seeking something that means nothing.

      • franklinb23

        The law does not determine the authenticity or depth of our relationships. It can only acknowledge it (or not).

        My dedication and love for my parents, for example, would remain as it is even were the law to nullify its validity.

        Why would this be any different for marital relationships?

        Civil marriage is a construct that was devised long after human beings formed these types of partnerships. You seem to be implying that they were never around until the law “created” them.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Marriage has been around as long as there have been human beings. The first man and woman were united together in marriage by God. Law can only affirm the marital union, and the only practical reason we need the law to affirm a proper marital union is because of humanity’s propensity to misuse and counterfeit the real thing. If no one attempted to counterfeit legal tender, we wouldn’t need laws that affirm legal tender and ban counterfeits.

          There is only one type of union which constitutes a marriage, and because some people (obviously) want to call something “marriage” that isn’t, good people have to stand against the counterfeit in favor of the genuine article. Otherwise, if something can mean anything, it means nothing.

        • DCM7

          “The law does not determine the authenticity or depth of our relationships.”
          That’s absolutely right. The law does not determine the value of a relationship.
          That’s why legally calling a same-sex pairing a “marriage” does NOT in any way give it the same intrinsic value as an actual marriage.

  • Pingback: 'Love is Love' Opens a Wide Door()