Marriage and Society

Since this is such a hot topic across the nation and one that affects everyone of us, or will affect everyone of us if we choose to go the way of Canada, I thought I'd reprint this testimony from Peter Sprigg. Very simple, very elegant, wish I'd said it.

Testimony by Peter Sprigg

Vice President for Policy, Family Research Council
Resident, Montgomery County, Maryland

IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 1345 - MARYLAND'S MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT (CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT)

IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILLS 351 AND 631 REGARDING CIVIL MARRIAGE;

IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILLS 570 AND 1112 REGARDING CIVIL UNIONS; IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILLS 848 AND 1174 REGARDING DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

Maryland House of Delegates

Judiciary Committee

February 28, 2008

I come before you today in support of House Bill 1345, a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

I would like to briefly address just two specific issues related to this debate. One is the relationship between marriage and religion, and the other is the issue of the financial and legal "benefits" that flow from civil marriage.

Some people who support this amendment, as I do, may argue that the historic definition of marriage should be preserved because of religious tradition. Opponents of the amendment, and advocates of so-called same-sex "marriage," may respond that it is illegitimate to impose a "religious" definition of marriage on the civil law.

But I would argue that both of these lines of reasoning are flawed. If you remember only one thing from my testimony, please remember this: Marriage is not primarily a religious institution or a civil institution. At its heart, marriage is a natural institution, rooted in the order of nature itself. Marriage existed before civil government and before religion as we know it. Neither religious institutions nor civil government create marriage; they simply recognize and regulate it.

Marriage arose as a fundamental social institution for two reasons. The first is because society needs to reproduce itself, and such reproduction takes place almost entirely through the sexual union of a man and a woman; and the second is because children need the mother and father who produce them to cooperate in raising them. These are facts of anthropology under every religion and every form of civil government. Religion alone is not reason enough to define marriage in a particular way; but the "separation of church and state" alone is not reason enough to change the traditional definition of marriage, either.

You will also hear some people testify as to the personal hardships they claim to suffer because they are denied the legal and financial "benefits" attached to civil marriage. But such anecdotes are ultimately irrelevant to the question before you. Society does not give "benefits" to marriage because individuals want them or would be helped by them. Society gives "benefits" to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore, when those who are not married, such as people in homosexual or cohabiting relationships, seek to receive such public "benefits," they bear the burden of proof. They must show that such relationships benefit society (not just themselves) in the same way and to the same degree that the authentic, natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman does. This is a burden they cannot meet. Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race. And research clearly demonstrates that married men and women-and children raised by their married, biological mother and father-are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. These are the true "benefits of marriage."

The legal and financial "benefits" of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. They give an incentive to enter into the socially beneficial relationship of authentic marriage, and give protection to the social institution of marriage. Awarding such benefits to the unmarried makes no more sense than giving veterans' benefits to people who never served in the military.

For these reasons-because of the natural meaning of marriage, and because of the benefits which flow from marriage, not to it-I urge you to support House Bill 1345.