Senator Sam Brownback (R. - KS) has written a column for National Review Online promoting the Federal Marraige Amendment. Unsurprisingly, it's dishonest from start to finish.
As the United States Senate debates the wisdom of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and protects against judicially-mandated same-sex unions, it is important to keep in mind the costs that we face as a society if we fail to protect traditional marriage.
Here's the text of the amendment: "SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
See anything there about banning anything mandated by the judiciary? Nope - it also would prevent any state legislature or the federal congress from allowing civil unions or gay marraige. He continues:
The costs to our society should rogue federal judges force the states to recognize the legal equivalence of same-sex unions would be significant — even devastating — when measured in terms of the effects on our central social institution, the family.
Here we go with the federal judges again. Let me repeat: this amendment would prevent any legislature or voter-driven ballot initiative allowing civil unions or gay marraige. Also, please note the ad hominem assertion that the costs would be devastating. Evidence please? Let's press on:
Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to ensure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children.
Yes? And?
Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study has shown that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. And the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous. As Child Trends, a mainstream child-welfare organization, has noted, "research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes... There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents."
Wait. So the amendment is about providing a mom and a dad to every child? Let me read it again...nope, that's not what it says. Maybe if we keep going he'll make more sense...
Giving public sanction to homosexual "marriage" would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children....
Where does the Constitution say that it's the government's job to safeguard the needs of children? I thought that was a parent's job. I expect this kind of "it takes a village" from the Clintons, but not from the Republicans. Also, grownups do things every day that place their "adult desires" above the best interests of their children: splurging at the mall instead of socking the money away for the little fartling's college education; hiring a babysitter to have an adult night on the town instead of staying home with the kids; taking a job in Washington thousands of miles away from your five kids in Kansas.
If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large. The movement away from traditional moral conventions left us with soaring divorce and out-of-wedlock birthrates, family breakdown on an unprecedented scale, and devastating consequences for children... the social science is clear. The best place for a child is with a mom and a dad. Both are needed.
So, Sam - are you supporting an amendment outlawing divorce? How about one outlawing out-of-wedlock births? No? If not, then it seems to me that even if your amendment passes, the dire conditions you describe facing children will stay at least as bad as they are now. How do you square the "public sanction" you talked about earlier with this grim acceptance of the status quo?
The truth is, Senator Sam Brownback doesn't care about the children, as such. If so, he would be supporting a much different amendment. What he's really against is: making sure I can visit X if he's in the hospital. Making sure that X automatically gets inheritance rights if anything happens to me. Letting us file a joint tax return at the lower rates that everyone else gets. Allowing us to get Social Security survivor benefits for each other. In other words, equality under the law.
I'd have more respect for his position if he'd just tell the truth: he hates us.
