In the Summer of 2006 the U.S. Congress considered a Marriage Protection Amendment. In the months leading up to the debate and vote I wrote 3 letters to our Senators.
Now, over 2 years later, our Senators and Representatives having failed us in this matter, and Judges acting like inconsiderate demagogues, disregarding the will of the people, and legislating rather than applying the work of the legislatures, “we the people” are faced with the grim reality that if this critical work is to be done we must do it. We must pass Constitutional Amendments in State after State that establish once-and-for-all “Marriage,” as consisting of “the union of a man and a woman.”
Because I recognize the magnitude of what is before us now in California and ultimately across the nation I’ve chosen to re-post the 3 letters originally posted in May and June of 2006. My highest hope, of course, is that an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will ultimately be achieved. But for now the Amendment of our State's Consitution is the challenge we face. May God grant us courage, determination, and success!
Senator, my name is Jim Denison. I am writing to ask you to consider thoughtfully the Marriage Protection Amendment which will establish that “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” As a Senator you represent what our Founders saw as a check to creeping populism. They sought, in the Senate, the seasoned, reasoned, more reserved, more deliberate forum of elite wisdom that represented the state legislatures; a check or balance to the “people’s House.” You are to provide to Congress what the 19th Century Journalist, Walter Bagehot called the “Republics … appeal to understanding.” So I urge you to give long and reasoned thought to this matter.
I am a follower of Jesus of Nazareth; one of myriad beneficiaries of His “Amazing Grace.” Obviously this is the primary reason I believe in the importance of “marriage” as consisting only “of the union of a man and a woman.” Our tradition, the Judaeo-Christian worldview, clearly holds that, “… at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’”
But my concern, though admittedly originating and grounded in faith, is also a matter of reason. This issue is metaphysical. It is about ultimate reality and the role of our race in the shaping of that reality.
Frankly, Senator, our future as a species will be significantly effected by our decision as a society to protect marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”
There are two reasons why this is so. The first is glaringly obvious. Through this and only this union can our race reproduce. Secondly, the view of growing numbers of privileged people, that population growth is seriously out of control and childbearing must be held in check or at the very least viewed as optional, threatens the progress our civilization has experienced in recent centuries.
The first threat to our species is that we are contemplating removing the special status of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman” and the protections it deserves. We are considering a Reconstructionist approach to the only relationship by which we humans reproduce. And what will be compromised, if that approach is adopted, is the lofty – for some sacred – esteem that has been given to that union.
Please understand that I recognize the checkered history of marriage. It has not always been monogamous. The arrangements that have proliferated across our recorded history are numerous and often denigrating to our once noble race. Even the Judaeo-Christian record, in this regard, is marred by sordid stories of abuse. But always, even in the most uncivilized and barbaric societies, protections, though sometimes primitive, have been provided for mating and safeguarding the nurture of offspring. Even the most unsophisticated of us know how necessary it is to construct protections for men and women in their childbearing and parenting years.
There is no question that our own society’s record with regard to marriage protection is far from pristine. But is it wise to point out our failures, throw up our hands in resignation, and abandon the supports necessary for improvement? Any reasonable person knows that, for all our failures, we’ve made remarkable advances in our understanding of what constitutes the optimum environment for reproduction and the care of our children. Why would we want to abandon the privileged place we’ve given to such relationships now?
Consider another aspect of our life as a society where we’ve achieved great advances. In the relatively short life of our civilization we’ve learned a great deal about what constitutes good health. We’ve devised a health care system that is arguably among the best in the world. Would we be wise to look at setbacks we’ve experienced and are now experiencing – new challenges from more resistant bacteria, strange, recently encountered viruses, and mutations of other diseases – throw up our hands in despair, and abandon all that we’ve achieved for something else?
To relinquish the exclusive protection and privilege we’ve provided marriage as “the union of a man and a woman” is regressive. We must recognize that. I urge you, Senator, to support a renewed effort to make this good thing better by writing it into our Constitution. I further urge you to not only protect and preserve this essential institution by a Constitutional Amendment but provide it with additional support in the form of incentives for pre-marriage training, education in conflict resolution, parent training, and the sharpening of other skills that make for thriving homes and families. Our stability as a society will be shored up immeasurably by such action.
Secondly, we must encourage married couples to reconsider the Judaeo-Christian axiom that “children are God’s best gift … the fruit of the womb his generous legacy.”
I am living in America today by choice. Canada is my Homeland. As far back as I can remember I’ve admired American life. This is a superior society. Our world needs more Americans; bright, free, optimistic in their knowledge of what can be achieved, and generous because they’ve seen the power of compassionate, shrewd philanthropy. Society will be deprived of this influence if we fail to acknowledge our shortsightedness and renew our effort to support and protect, with exclusive and ever more diligent attention, the only relationship that can perpetuate it. Mark Steyn, Journalist and Author, has shown just how critical this is in an Op-Ed piece dealing with world population.
“‘Replacement’ fertility rate – i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population
not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller – is 2.1 babies per woman. … Scroll way
down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top ‘reproducers’ and you'll eventually find
the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland
is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. .. Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below
replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia
and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate.” He insists that these statistics
are, primarily, ‘about culture. … if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist
democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether
the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.
“… If a population ‘at odds with the modern world’ is the fastest-breeding group on the
planet … how safe a bet is the survival of the ‘modern world’?”
Jennifer Roeback Morse, author, Life Coach, speaker and a Fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, shows how critical the issue of Marriage Protection is if we are to not only replace but multiply ourselves as World shapers.
“Demographic collapse is hardly surprising. Many commentators have observed that
children have become a commodity, an extra line on the accomplished woman’s resume.
Few have noticed the short, direct line from sex as a commodity, to sex partner as
commodity, to babies as commodities.
“Without permanent bonds between parents, having babies is a risky business. Marriage is
the healthiest, most reliable environment in which to bring children from helpless infancy
to productive adulthood. But our society has become indifferent as to whether parents are
married or not. We are even on the verge of becoming indifferent as to whether children
have two parents of the opposite sex or of the same sex. Hardly a cultural environment
conducive to having a higher than replacement level of fertility.”
Senator, I urge you to accept the responsibility given you by the Founders of this great Nation. Be the voice of reason in the conversations of government. Tell the people the truth. Give them the opportunity to debate this issue authoritatively. Set in motion the process by which our United States can do their part in the ratification of this necessary Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment