Even as I acknowledge my beliefs as the foundation of my conviction on this matter I must also insist, again, that reason moves me just as strongly. The Judaeo Christian worldview presumes that its tenets are more than religious matters. They are ultimate and final revelations of what is. They are metaphysical. It is reasonable, then, that we would conclude that our existence as a race; the quality of our existence; the “nature” of things is highly dependent on “the union of a man and a woman.” I’ve already stated how obvious this is in previous correspondences. This union alone is the means by which we reproduce. To suggest that the petrie dish can be the new reproductive theatre is to reveal how utterly shallow our thinking has become. It is no less vacuous – and presumptive – than the notion that when we use pre-existent material to produce what appear to be new life forms we’ve “created life.” I’ve also shown, previously, that the “union of a man and a woman,” when it is healthy, provides the best environment for the growing of robust offspring. To deprive this “union” of its exclusive and protected status in our society because it is sometimes found to be unhealthy is no less foolish than to abandon our advances in medical science and throw open the door to every form of alternative medicine because our system has failed to provide us with perfect health. We have a good thing. Let’s expend our resources to make IT better.
These glaringly obvious reasons for protecting Marriage, as we’ve traditionally understood it, are not the only rationale for such action. We must also accept the importance of gender to our race and to the very essence of life as we know it. Gender matters.
The Judaeo Christian story of creation contains an often understated – if not overlooked – view of humankind. The Creator, in His musings, says, “Let us make man, in our image, like ourselves… .” Note the plural pronouns. The Creator is talking to Himself as if He were “Them” selves. It is, in this conversation, that Christians find the first glimpse of the Trinitarian nature of God; a perfect union of three quite distinct persons; Father, Son, and Spirit. This plurality within the unity of the Creator has to be addressed if we want to fully understand how much gender matters to us. The story continues. “So God created man in His own image,” we’re told. But one telling isn’t enough. It’s repeated. “In the image of God He created him,” A second time it is repeated. In the second restatement we encounter the gender factor. “Male and female He created them.” Man, like the Creator, is plural. “In His own image … He created THEM.” Like the Creator, man has distinctive components; two distinct persons in perfect unity. There is something about Woman that is godlike. There is something about man that is godlike. Unique, distinct in their individuality, they are designed to be one; united; together reflecting completely the “image” of their Creator.
Having completed this masterpiece of His creative work God gave “man” as “male and female” their mandate. We’ve already seen the command to reproduce in that imperative. We’ve also considered his instruction to “fill the earth” with their kind. Still there remains another critical aspect to the assignment. It is “rule.” The Creator gave authority to both the man and the woman in a single imperative. Authority, as God originally established it, was to be exercised by man and woman in perfect union; like the union within God himself.
This is profoundly significant to our discussion of Marriage. Not only is Man – as Male and Female – to carry on the creative work of their Creator through reproduction and nurture. They are to exercise His authority over all that he has made and continues to make. In each aspect of their assignment their distinctives emerge. In reproducing themselves men and women play an undeniably distinct role. Likewise their role in the nurture of offspring is unique. As we might expect, in their fulfillment of the command to “rule,” they demonstrate unique understanding and exercise distinct yet equally valuable capabilities. These distinctives stand out and are essential in parenting. But, just as importantly, they are seen in the loving, knowing, and managing that goes on in all of life.
You don’t have to be a genius to see that what was intended originally has long ago fallen into disrepair. As someone said, “there is … a sword between the sexes.” Much of the disagreement about Marriage today is the result of the immense difficulty men and women have understanding and relating to each other. But, again, we would be foolish to abandon, without further effort, the quest to recover what might have been and may yet be.
In her review of a 1991 book on “Men and Women in Conversation,” Ruthe Stein, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle says, “This book – written by a linguistics expert so you have to believe she knows what she’s talking about – could be the Rosetta Stone that at last deciphers the miscommunication between the sexes.” She is reviewing Deborah Tannen’s, You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. In the Preface to her book, Dr. Tannen, Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University, writes, “Recognizing gender differences frees individuals from the burden of individual pathology. ... If we recognize and understand the differences between us, we can take them into account, adjust to, and learn from each other’s styles.” Later, she cites, Erving Goffman, whose career in the Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, the National Institute of Mental Health, the University of California, Berkley, and the University of Pennsylvania, spanned three decades from 1952 to 1982.
“In our society in all classes the tenderest expression of affection involves displays that are politically questionable, the place taken up in them by the female being differentiated from and reciprocal to the place taken up by the male. Cross-sex affectional gestures choreograph protector and protected, embracer and embraced, comforter and comforted, supporter and supported, extender of affection and recipient thereof; and it is defined as only natural that the male encompass and the female be encompassed. And this can only remind us that male domination is a very special kind, a domination that can be carried right into the gentlest, most loving moment without apparently causing strain - indeed, these moments can hardly be conceived of apart form these asymmetries.’
Gender is a category that will not go away. ... it is ‘one of the most deeply seated traits of man’. We create masculinity and femininity in our ways of behaving, all the while believing we are simply acting ‘naturally’. But our sense of what is natural is different for women and men.”
These behavioral scientists are telling us that gender is here to stay. There are significant distinctives. These distinctives when understood; encouraged to fully develop; and mutually respected and valued can make humans better together than they will ever be in isolation from one another. Even in our interactions and associations outside the Marriage “bond” our unique “sense of what is natural” sets the stage for complementary partnerships that make for more complete fulfillment of ourselves and our life purpose than we could ever realize independently.
In the University Of Utah’s S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, Journal Of Law & Family Studies VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2, A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, writes about Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree. (Dr. Byrd is President of the Thrasher Research Fund and Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine with appointments in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and in the Department of Psychiatry. In addition, Dr. Byrd has an adjunct appointment in the Department of Family Studies.) His choice of the term “Complementarity,” is especially significant to my purpose here. It stresses our interdependence as Male and Female and shows how our influence, in partnership with one another, can be so much more profound than when we try to keep the Creator’s mandate alone.
“… Complementarity,” Dean notes, “is readily observable in differing parenting styles of mothers and fathers. Not only are fathers' styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987) noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt play more than caretaking. This play in various forms among the young appears critical for later development. (Yogman, 1982).
A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old) who had a close relationship with their fathers seemed more stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating implications: ‘there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions’ (Broughton, 2002 p. Al).
Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants are held and … in which mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers more frequently use touch to calm, soothe, or comfort infants. When a mother lifts her child, she brings the child toward her breasts providing warmth, comfort, security and protection. Fathers more often use touch to stimulate or to excite the child. Fathers tend to hold infants at arms length in front of them, make eye contact, toss the infant in the air, or embrace the child in such a way that the child is looking over the father's shoulder. Shapiro notes that each of these "daddy holds" underscores a sense of freedom (1994).
Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship--apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this rough-and-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders. Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes, the benefits of this rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children who ‘roughhouse’ with their fathers quickly learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers, and such play provides children with opportunities to recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell & Leper, 1994).
There are gender differences in parental approaches to discipline. The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and are more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the fundamental differences between men and women in their moral senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules, while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping based on relationships.
The critical contributions of mothers to the healthy development of children have been long recognized. No reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers in the normal development of children could be found. Recent research validates the importance of fathers in the parenting process, as well. Studies such as that conducted by Pruett (1987) concluded that six-month old infants whose fathers actively played with them had higher scores on the Bailey Test of Mental and Motor Development. Parke (1981) noted that infants whose fathers spent more time with them were more socially responsive and better able to withstand stressful situations than infants relatively deprived of substantial interaction with their fathers. A second female cannot provide fathering. In fact, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that children living with a mother and grandmother fared worse as teenagers than did those adolescents living with just a single parent. Biller (1993) concluded that men who were father-deprived in life were more likely to engage in rigid, over compensatory, masculine, aggressive behaviors later. His research, based on more than 1,000 separate sources, demonstrated repeatedly the positive effect of fathers on children.
Pruett (1993) summarized the highly acclaimed work of Erik Erikson, one of the most esteemed developmental psychologists in the world, who noted that mothers and fathers love differently. A fathers' love is characterized by instrumentality and more expectancies, whereas a mother's love is more nurturing, expressive, and integrative. Mothers care for their young. Fathers baby sit. Mothers nurture. Fathers negotiate. Fathers focus on extra-familial relationships, social skills and developing friendships. Adolescents who have affectionate relationships with their fathers have better social skills, exude more confidence, and are more secure in their own competencies.”
Senator, gender matters. Whether in the home; the neighborhood; at play or at work; in educating or in governing we, men and women, are better together than we are apart. The best parent, the finest mentor, the most beneficent leader is a Team. Partners, male and female, reflecting the nature of their loving, wise, and powerful Creator, complementarily loving, enlightening, and guiding. Please accept the responsibility given you by the Founders. Be the voice of reason in the conversations of government. Tell the people this truth. Give them the opportunity to debate the issue of Marriage Protection authoritatively. Set in motion the process by which our United States can do their part in the ratification of this necessary Amendment.
