Daniel Blomberg

Today nearly 45 states with populations totaling nearly 295 million Americans affirm marriage as one man and one woman. In all 31 states in which they have been given the opportunity to vote on the issue, Americans have decided that we should protect marriage. For one judge to declare his will sovereign over the other nearly 300 million of us is unfathomably arrogant. Americans know injustice when they see it, especially coming from what is supposed to be a seat of justice.

Even the youngest child recognizes the differences between the two halves of humanity – men and women. The unique, natural benefit they provide in union are the reason marriage is defined as it is. No other relationship, no matter how close, can duplicate marriage, especially a relationship between two men or two women. It is not “discrimination” to treat different things differently. Most Americans recognize the unique and valuable contribution of marriage to society and thus believe it deserves protection.

This is precisely where the fallacious racial discrimination analogy employed to slander good-faith marriage supporters fails. The claim is that those who reject same-sex “marriage” are like those who opposed interracial marriage. Wrong. There is no basis for equating sexual behavior with race. This is not a “civil rights” discussion. No one disagreed that interracial marriages were marriages. The issue was that the same things (marriages) were being treated differently. That’s not the case here. The union of one man and one woman is fundamentally different from any other relationship and may—should—be treated so.

The effort to impose societal acceptance of homosexual behavior has already threatened the religious liberty of those with deeply held religious convictions about marriage and sexual behavior. This is happening in states that have already radically changed marriage and those that haven’t.

A Christian photographer in New Mexico was ordered to pay $6,637 in attorney's fees after she refused to photograph a “commitment ceremony” between two women. A Georgia counselor was fired after referring a woman seeking affirmation of a homosexual relationship to another counselor. Catholic adoption and foster care programs in Massachusetts, California, and the District of Columbia were forced to cease operations or limit services because of laws that would have forced them to place children in homes where homosexual behavior is taking place. These are just a few of a growing number of examples. Americans value our First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty and are beginning to recognize the clear and present threat to our cherished freedoms. This case has raised that danger to an unprecedented level. The plaintiffs even entered doctrinal statements from America’s two largest denominations as examples of bigotry. Chilling.

Finally, the question is often asked, “How does same-sex ‘marriage’ harm your marriage?” This is the wrong question because of the concerns mentioned above but also because marriage supporters aren’t merely asking, “What’s in it for me?”

Marriage supporters are considering society as a whole. Government interest in marriage has to do with sustaining a healthy society. And a state-decreed elimination of distinctions between men and women—the very basis for the time-tested definition of marriage—is a signal that moms and dads don’t really matter to children. State endorsement of this tragic idea would lead to more homes that deny children their right to the mom and the dad they need. Americans are all too acquainted with the disastrous consequences of the social experiments of the last generation that have put the wants of adults over the needs of children.

Americans are a people of goodwill and common sense. Americans believe in our Constitution and cherish our fundamental liberties. Americans believe that our will, expressed through the legitimate democratic process, should not be ignored and overturned by one judge. Americans know deep down that every child deserves—and needs—both a mom and a dad. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court, where most believe this case will ultimately be decided, understands the good that marriage offers society and that it deserves the highest level of protection.


Daniel Blomberg

Daniel Blomberg serves as litigation counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org).