Via the New York Times (thanks to Alas reader NancyP for the link). The text in italics indicates a passage that was added at the last minute at the insistence of religious conservatives.
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. President Bush said, “We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order.” The Republican House of Representatives has responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law, so that activist federal judges cannot force 49 other states to approve and recognize Massachusetts’ attempt to redefine marriage.
What I find most interesting is this sentence: “We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.” This seems to indicate that the Republican platform opposes not only same-sex marriage, but all legal recognitions of same-sex relationships, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. Yet somehow, I suspect few if any of the “I oppose gay marriage, but favor civil unions” people will say much in opposition to this platform.
UPDATE: The Log Cabin Republicans agree with my interpretation of the GOP platform. Via CultureWatch.
“We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”
Hey! At least they are admitting there are benefits. Sometimes they seem to want to claim there are no benefits, but just burdens which heterosexual couples assume out of pure duty for their country. Yet, somehow, we must legally block same sex couples from taking on those burdens…. because… (Fill in reason. )
No hospital visitation, no guaranteed say in treatment of incapacitated partner unless specified by living will, no right to bury the loved one’s body (according to most states, even distant blood relatives take precedence over “live-in lovers” (either hetero or homo) of many years when it comes to custody of the corpse, unless there is a very specific legal instrument, boilerplate living wills don’t count). These are just the things that occur to me, given my health care job background.
where do they get off trying to say that the one man/one woman model is the only one humanity has ever used? have they not read their own bible?
jeez, they can’t even be honest about their justifications. and if kids are ONLY healthy and happy in a household headed by a married biomom and biodad, what’s that say about stepfamilies? what’s next, do we only allow marriage for never-marrieds on account of the kids have been ruined because of divorce?
these people are insane.
In Nepal (or is it Tibet?) it is common for women to have 2 husbands. So much for the 1man1woman thing being universal and all.
These people are sooooo out of sync. The “one man, one woman” thing is a very recent development in the history of humankind. It has been conjectured that the original “family” was a woman and her children, and whatever lover she had at present, male or female. There has been polygamy for at since biblical times, and it is still prevalent in Muslim countries. Most of this is decided by supply and demand. Polygamy probably originated to shelter women left husbandless by war or other accident, when there weren’t enough men to go around. I predict in the future China may institute female polygamy in response to the current imbalance in the sexes there.
Personally, I think “family” is whoever you choose to call family, and I agree that gays should have the benefits that accrue to more conventional? unions. I am not gay, but I would rather have my sometime lover make health decisions for me because he is here and knows what I want, rather than my family, which is distant in more ways than one. We must get over this “one man, one woman” thing.
Isn’t this pretty typical of the “religious right”? Take one fairly extreme position and hide an even more extreme position inside it?
Like abortion for example … how many “anti-abortion” folks out there would also support moves to limit birth control? The same ones who also support “abstinence only” sex eduction and oppose any other kind?
“if kids are ONLY healthy and happy in a household headed by a married biomom and biodad”
Dana — I don’t think that is accurate. I don’t think, aside from the religious wackos, anyone would argue that children are not healthy in a loving home. I think they are saying that, all things being equal, a married man and woman has the best chance for creating and raising healthy children and should be encouraged. The problem is the next argument, whether or not providing benefits to ALL families will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman. Only time and a generation will be able to tell if that is true.
I am personally in favor of Abraham’s model of a family. Matter of fact, I think I will go to New York today to advocate it. Think it will fly? I am not so excited about Nepal’s model.
jstevenson: “…whether or not providing benefits to ALL families will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman.”
Are there any studies out there to give us data on why men and women marry under the current legal regime? Perhaps it’s because I’m from the white-bread part of the country, but I don’t know any couples who married for anything other than love.
Ab_Normal: I don’t think so. How would you quantify it. “Did you marry because of the benefits of marriage?” Perhaps a sample question could be worded like — “If you could receive the same government benefits of marriage, without marrying, would you still marry?” The outcome of that study would be interesting. I don’t think people would ever admit that they got married because of something other than love. But the truth of the matter is, if you love each other, why do you have to get married (the trinity of marriage — of the parties, of the church, and of the state). In that light, people get married for reasons other than love (of the person). People, even in the midwest, get married because of their faith (of the church) and people get married because of the incentives (of the state).
If the state incentives of “marriage” are non-exsistent and the role of faith continues to decline, then it seems logical that there will no longer be any incentive left to marry under the church or state. Whether people will no longer wish to be with each other forever, out of love, that is another story.
Like abortion for example … how many “anti-abortion” folks out there would also support moves to limit birth control? The same ones who also support “abstinence only” sex eduction and oppose any other kind?
Well, my husband got a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood, and as we were walking out (he was leaning on me, but I suppose it may have looked like I was leaning on him), a picketer yelled “Shame!” at us. So I turned around and explained that we were doing our part to reduce abortion, since he’d just had a vasectomy.
The picketer then said to my husband, “You can reverse those, you know!”
So, at least one.
Good point about the biomom and biodad argument. If you think that children should be raised that way, you should be pro-abortion because one of the most common reasons women get abortion is because they can’t raise their children in the traditional married relationship.
Don’t some cultures have children raised by a woman and her brothers, with the fathers barely present?
Perhaps it’s because I’m from the white-bread part of the country
in the midwest. I like whole wheat.
I don’t know any couples who married for anything other than love.
I think love is the main reason people want to commit to each other, and as such, it is the main reason people marry.
Interestingly, some opponents of same sex marriage suggest the main purpose of marriage is not love and commitment but procreation.
That said, there are some benefits to marriage– although, many of those benefits are only useful to people who love each other and are committed. For example: who’s aching for the right to visit someone they don’t love in the hospital?
“The social science confirms…”??
“THE social science”?????
“T.H.E social science”?????????
American Academy of Pediatrics anyone????
Oh wait, I guess that’s HARD science. Doesn’t count.
@$$holes!
jstevenson:
I think they are saying that, all things being equal, a married man and woman has the best chance for creating and raising healthy children and should be encouraged.
There’s no evidence that children do any better when raised by a man and a woman than when raised by two men or two women. Some people may believe they do, but that belief is a matter of prejudice.
The problem is the next argument, whether or not providing benefits to ALL families will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman.
It’s hard to know what “ALL families” is supposed to mean. The issue here is same-sex marriage. What evidence is there that extending marriage to same-sex couples will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman?
Don P:
I have seen those studies also. As for social science studies — see Shannon’s post. Studies can be made to say whatever people want them to say. Nevertheless, given my experience with my children’s friends, I would agree with you.
The first clause I do agree with. All things being equal a married man and woman has the BEST chance for creating healthy children. What I mean is that without medical intervention, a man and a woman have the best chance of creating a child and if they are married that is better than them not being married. Does that mean that we should do so at the expense of other children? Absolutely not. There has to be a better way to encourage marriage and procreation without hurting the children who are not part of that social construct. I don’t know what that is.
“What evidence is there that extending marriage to same-sex couples will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman?”
Will SSM discourage Judeo-Christian marriage, I don’t think so. From my experience with Scandinavia — civil unions will take away the incentives for marriage. Most of my friends and young family members from a certain Scandinavian country are not married and do not plan to get married. The common mantra: “why would I want to do that?” or “no one gets married in Norway, everyone lives together”. They like the benefits of marriage and would do it if civil unions were not available.
CAVEAT: I know Amp wrote on this earlier. My statements regarding Scandinavia are based on statements from my family and friends over there. I go there once or twice a year for three to four weeks. My opinion is not based on a peer reviewed social study with a specific political agenda.
None of the major anti-abortion organizations has a policy supportive of birth control. The most liberal stance is “we have no opinion one way or the other”–Feminists for Life and National Right to Life are in that category. The rest oppose birth control. (American Life League believes birth control leads to abortion–see, if you have birth control, then you might have sex when you don’t want a baby, and if the birth control fails you’d abort. QED.)
If the state incentives of “marriage” are non-exsistent
Nice rabbit hole there. There are plenty of state incentives to marry–that’s what all the homos are fussing about. “Civil unions” are a creation of nervous-nellies who don’t like the idea of two men in tuxedos marrying. Seems rather odd to push for gays to have civil unions or no unions, then wail about how nobody will want to marry if we take away the tax breaks.
I think if Gay marriage is made legal(I am not offering my support for it) that we should get rid of civil unions. The whole point of civil unions was so same sex couples could get the same financial benefits as a married couple without being married.
If it comes to the point that gay marriage will inevitably be passed Republicans should only offer their support on the grounds of no more civil unions.
If civil unions continue to exist after that point all it does is give societal approval for living in sin.
Marriage has become rare enough as it is( only 24% of children are born to a married a couple) that we can afford to give people even more reasons not to.