Statement issued Wednesday by the American Family Association of Indiana:
“The Supreme Court’s decision in no way took this important issue away from Indiana. The future of marriage matters, and it belongs in the hands of Hoosier voters, not the courts, not Hollywood, and not the activists seeking to change it from what it is and always has been – the union of a man and a woman,” said Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
Clark continued, “Marriage is not just a law, it is a principle worthy of our protection. Throughout history, on every part of the globe, diverse cultures have honored the truth about marriage. There may be ceremonial differences, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”
The US Supreme Court ruled against a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress concerning federal benefits in a 5-4 decision. It sent back the Prop 8 case due to questions of standing. It is very unfortunate that the court has appeared to erase the votes of millions of Californians. However, it did not rewrite marriage for Indiana, It did not overturn other states’ marriage amendments or laws preserving natural marriage beyond California. This debate surrounding the future of marriage is far from over.
Marriage has a public and a private purpose. Governments recognize marriage because it is an institution that benefits society like no other relationship. Redefining marriage would have denied that children need both a mom and a dad. Marriage is about the established needs of children, not merely the desires of adults or a few activists.
“Homosexuals in all 50 states are free to live together, buy property together, enter contracts, and have their unions blessed by a religious community, but no one is entitled to redefine marriage for all of America. State marriage policies must draw a line somewhere. I am pleased that the Supreme Court recognized this truth and allowed state marriage amendments and laws recognizing the importance of a husband and a wife to stand,” Clark said.
This was a loss for those who tried to use the courts to unravel the logical boundaries of marriage across the board. It was also a loss to those seeking to equate the homosexual political agenda to the civil rights movement. The court rejected the claim that same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior is the moral equivalence of a civil right or skin color and that preserving marriage between a man and a woman is discrimination. Had they thought this, they surely would have ruled in favor of the opponents of Prop 8 or even DOMA in a more sweeping way as those activists had sought.
It is important to note that protecting marriage is not the same as interracial marriage laws of the past. Such laws were about keeping men and women apart. Marriage protection efforts are about keeping men and women together. While marriage must be color-blind, it cannot be gender-blind without harming children and society, because children need both a mom and a dad, regardless of their race.
- Hundreds gather for dueling marriage rallies
- Concordia seminary response says DOMA decision shows moral blindness
- Rhoades: Indiana must uphold unique meaning of marriage
- Gay marriage fight is on the horizon for Indiana
- Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
- 'It isn't just about a license'
- 'The question is about marriage'
- Donnelly for, Coats against court decision on marriage