Dear Friends,
As promised, this is another in a series of emails to update you about our legal advocacy in the Perry v. Schwarzeneggertrial to preserve traditional marriage.
Perhaps the most critical feature of traditional marriage is the impact the institution has on the creation and raising of children. Simple biology proves that relationships only between a man and woman can result in the creation of a child. It just can’t happen between two men or two women. Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Logically, it only makes sense that society would want to encourage marriage between a child’s biological mother and father, and that is exactly what California (and virtually every other state) has always done. But more than logic supports the public policy adopted by the voters when they enacted Proposition 8.
The contention that there is no discernable difference in the impact on the cognitive, emotional and social well-being of a child between opposite-sex married couples and homosexual couples just isn’t borne out by social science. It is at the core of why Prop 8 was placed on the ballot and why more than seven million Californians supported it.
Like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule, but social science research indicates that children who grow up in a family setting other than with their two biological parents are at greater risk for a host of negative challenges, including health problems, premature immortality, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, criminal behavior, and incarceration.
If that’s not enough, children who do not live with their married, biological parents are at heightened risk for intergenerational poverty, early sexual activity and pregnancy, and are far more likely to face problems in school and the labor force as they enter adulthood.
As we noted in our Findings of Facts document submitted to the court, “many of the negative outcomes associated with not being raised by married, biological parents become more pronounced (or at least more measurable) in adolescence or early adulthood.” In other words, if the challenges that can be brought about by living outside the traditional two-parent family aren’t immediately revealed, it is quite likely, according to social science, that they will become apparent later in life. That is not the kind of environment any parent or any society should intentionally choose for a child.
These are impacts that have been carefully studied and the results are solidly supported. On the other hand, the rarity and novelty of same-sex parenting means social scientists are currently unable to draw meaningful conclusions about its impact on children. That is why there is such uproar over legislators and judges foisting same-sex marriage as a social experiment upon children.
Yet we are being asked by same-sex marriage advocates to put aside what we know for sure for a “cross your fingers and hope for the best” approach because it suits the political agenda and desire of adults.
To be sure, raising children today is infinitely more difficult than in past generations. Many single moms and dads do heroic work every day to raise their children in a loving, secure and safe environment. They have earned our respect and admiration. But laws and public policies are supposed to promote the ideal – the “common good” – for society, especially when it comes to our children. A child who is left fatherless through divorce or abandonment can certainly be lovingly raised by her mother, just as a single dad can lovingly raise his child without a mother. But to promote the idea of purposefully depriving children of a mother or a father simply because a miniscule portion of the population wants to experiment with homosexual marriage is not an acceptable risk.
As always, we thank you for your continued financial support during the continuing legal battle to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Through the month of April, all donations will be matched thanks to a generous benefactor. Every dollar you give will mean two dollars for the effort. We will continue to keep you apprised of the next steps in the San Francisco court case as it unfolds.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director
RECOMMEND (13)
