Posted by:

A traditional view of marriage must be upheld to ensure the strength and prosperity of future generations of Americans.  This is a key issue that must transcend party lines and be preserved by all freedom lovers of the United States.  Our true strength as a nation does not flow from our military might or our financial prosperity.  It flows from the core values upon which our nation was founded.  Our values underscore our beliefs about God, family, and country.  It is those values and beliefs that set us apart as unique in the eyes of the world and in turn make us a great nation under God.  The heart and life-blood of American society is the family unit.  There is no debating the fact that children raised in a traditional family with a mother and a father are far better off than those who are not.  A child needs the balance of male and female leadership and guidance.  He needs to learn about love, discipline, and faith from his parents.  Schools should complement what is being taught in the home, but the real educating about how to live and function as a responsible citizen should be provided by Mom and Dad.  The influence that parents have on their children cannot be overemphasized.  That is not to say that single parents cannot overcome their adverse circumstances and prove to do an exemplary job at raising their children.  However, they will most often be the first to tell you, that their situation is far less than ideal.    Statistics show that kids raised without a mother or a father and particularly when born out of wedlock, are likely to be pushed into a lifestyle of poverty and welfare.  They are more prone to drugs and crime.  They often drop out of school and acquire low-paying, dead-end jobs, if they get jobs at all.  Again, this is certainly not the story of every child raised outside of a traditional family environment, but unfortunately it does prove to be the norm more often than not.  Americans must understand that marriage is instituted by God in the Bible.  It is to be for one man and one woman for life.  Divorce, same-sex marriage, premarital sex, and unprepared/underage marriage breaks down the strength of our family structure.

What can be done?
1) A federal constitutional amendment is needed that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Same-sex marriages should not be recognized on the federal or the state level.

2) The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and became law on September 21, 1996.  It must be supported and upheld as law.  It declares that no state or political subdivision within the United States has to recognize persons of the same sex as married, even if their relationship is declared as a marriage in another state.  It also maintains that the Federal government is not permitted to consider same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if they are viewed as marriages in certain states.

3) All must commit to be part of the solution, not the problem.  Enter into “holy matrimony” only after giving careful thought and prayer to that monumental decision.  Take advantage of every resource available to prepare for marriage, such as pre-marital counseling, books, and seminars on marriage.  Train the next generation to have a reverent view of marriage and to commit to sexual abstinence in relationships until they are married.

If you use Facebook, please take a moment to comment on this post below. Or, use the buttons to the left to send this post to your followers on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ or Pinterest. I appreciate the feedback and doing this helps other people learn about my resources. If you do not use social media, please still leave a comment using the alternate form at the bottom of this page. Thank you very much!

Comment with Facebook, or scroll down to post only on this blog page:



  1. John Andrew Warner  February 17, 2010

    From a civil perspective, what is at stake is the definition of marriage. I’m sorry but, “We should have the freedom to marry whoever” reflects an extreme lack of critical thinking on this issue. I am someone who supports the individual’s freedom to choose who he/she is romantically involved with. But adopting a ‘whoever’ philosophy takes away any clear definition of ‘marriage’. If we can marry ‘whoever’, then while this will result in same-sex ‘marriage’, it will also result in incestuous ‘marriage’, the ‘marrying’ of adults to minors, and even the ‘marrying’ of persons to animals. It sounds crazy. But when ‘whoever’ is the standard, those are the results. The point is this; ‘some’ line has to be drawn regarding the definition of marriage. The ‘whoever’ philosophy does not work. Even most same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents would recognize that at least ‘some’ line must be drawn. The important question is this (and here is where the debate should lie); just ‘where’ should that line be drawn??? Those like myself, who oppose same-sex marriage, want to to reaffirm the traditional line in this country for the sake of (please get this) for the sake of ‘honoring’ and ‘setting apart’ the heterosexual relationship as something very unique and valuable in both nature and society. Proponents of same-sex marriage use lazy philosophies to throw up smoke, acting like victims of some terrible injustice. The exact opposite is true. They have excessive freedoms in our country, in contrast with many other countries around the world. But this is not good enough for them. They want to take that name, ‘marriage’, which has symbolized the unique and valuable heterosexual relationship, and they want to make that name inclusively representative of relationships which have different levels of contribution to nature and society than that of the heterosexual relationship, thereby effectively robbing the heterosexual relationship of its recognized uniqueness and value. The issue for me is not ‘gay rights’. I think people should have the freedom to choose who they want to be with (Of course, that is not to say I think all of these decisions are morally right decisions). The real issue is the devaluing of the heterosexual relationship in our society. And that is something I think conservatives need to more carefully and boldly articulate, despite the unwarranted victim-mentality of same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents and their often hateful tone towards the right.

Add a Comment