Many have questioned the necessity of defining marriage within the Constitution or under any law for that matter. Such persons reason that marriage should be left to individuals and couples to define for themselves. However, as outlined below, defining marriage within the Constitution is the only remaining method of protecting man-woman marriage as the fundamental institution of society.
The purpose of defining anything under the law is to preserve and to promote the order and stability of societal institutions. If people were left to define these social institutions for themselves, there would be no consensus on why these institutions exist and what purpose they serve. In effect the law would have no function. For example, imagine if people were allowed to define for themselves the meaning of terms defined under the criminal law such as "illicit drugs," "child pornography," "speeding," or even "murder." In that scenario, the institution of the criminal justice system would be useless.
The most important institution in our society is the family, and marriage is the foundation of a family. Marriage is and has always been the union of a man and a woman. The institution of marriage is ordained of God for the happiness of His children. Why is man-woman marriage as opposed to genderless marriage so fundamental to our society and so essential for our happiness? Because man-woman marriage is, among other things, the optimal and most effective means of (1) bearing children; (2) raising children and providing for their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual welfare; (3) transforming males into husbands/fathers and females into wives/mothers, (4) bridging the male-female divide, and (5) channeling healthy sexual activity and discouraging unhealthy sexual activity. These well established benefits of man-woman marriage, and the consequences of eliminating these benefits, affect not only individuals, couples, and families, but society as a whole. An omniscient God, knowing all of these things, ordained marriage so that we as His children might be happy.
Of course, man cannot change institutions that God himself has ordained because such institutions are eternal and unchangeable. Nonetheless, God has instituted governments for the benefit of man, and He has given us our agency to allow us to learn between good and evil. He teaches us correct principles and lets us govern ourselves. Unfortunately, although God has taught us correct principles and invites us to accept and live those principles that are necessary for our happiness, there are some who cannot accept or have even denied the divine source of those principles. Turning away from God, they engage in a process of self-discovery and experiment with principles that are contrary to those taught by God. Without accepting and living the principles established by God, the result is always unhappiness.
In our democratic republic, we have the freedom to voice our opinions to establish a moral consensus and develop man-made laws. Those laws not only establish boundaries of right and wrong for society but enable us to exercise our freedoms and to suffer (or to enjoy) the consequences of our actions. Because removing these boundaries does not remove the consequences, such boundaries (or laws) serve to teach and reinforce the consequences.
Until recently, it was unnecessary to define what marriage is through man-made law. Everyone had always known and assumed that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Unfortunately, today, for the first time in the history of the world, a small minority is questioning this established truth by attempting to remove gender from the equation and establish genderless “marriage.” The central goal of this minority is clear: they are endeavoring to hijack the institution of marriage to push a broader cultural, social, and political agenda—namely, the acceptance and promotion of homosexual activity and lifestyle. Yet, because this minority cannot gain a consensus to create laws through the legislative process, they have turned to the courts to push their agenda. Even with statutes on the books that define what marriage is and what it is not, a few activist judges have struck down these statutes under the guise of principles such as “privacy,” “dignity,” “liberty,” “equality,” and “fairness.” Ignoring precedent and reason, these judges have attempted to create a new kind of “marriage” by legislating from the bench.
The only way to stop the advance of this minority rule and to protect our most fundamental societal institutions from judge-made law is to ingrain them in our constitutions, both state and federal. No state judge has the authority to overturn a state or federal constitutional amendment, and no federal judge has the authority to overturn a federal constitutional amendment. Because our Founding Fathers understood the permanent nature of a constitution and its ultimate supremacy as a form of law, they ingrained certain bedrock principles into our federal Constitution. Many of these principles were those that had been called into question by tyrannical rule and lawlessness—principles such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and due process.
Today, the very meaning of marriage—the most fundamental of all institutions in society—has been called into question. Therefore, the time has come to ingrain the definition of marriage into our state and federal constitutions. Without such protection, man-woman marriage as a vital social institution will lose the protection and encouragement of our government, and ultimately society will lose the well established benefits for which man-woman marriage exists.
