• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama and the Truth about Marriage

    Yesterday, President Obama announced that he supports same-sex marriage. This was not exactly a surprise.

    Sure, when running for Senate in 2004, Obama said that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” And when campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he restated that view and also claimed he did “not support gay marriage.”

    The truth, however, is that President Obama has repeatedly done and said things that directly undermine marriage as one man and one woman.

    President Obama has openly opposed state marriage amendments, such as Proposition 8 in California and the hugely successful amendment adopted by voters in North Carolina earlier this week. These amendments would protect marriage from judicial activism in state courts and let voters decide the question through democratic processes. But Obama views such measures as “divisive” and “discriminatory.”

    President Obama also supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. And President Obama’s Justice Department has taken extraordinary steps to undermine DOMA in the courts, first by offering a soft defense and then by offering no defense at all.

    These seeming inconsistencies led many to conclude that the President wasn’t really against gay marriage but was saying so for political reasons. Now, the President has finally owned up to what many people already suspected: that he supports same-sex marriage.

    It is good that President Obama has decided to be more straightforward about what he really believes about marriage. The American public deserves at least that much.

    But the President’s so-called “evolution” on the timeless institution of marriage marks an unfortunate turn. Society has a civilizational interest in promoting marital childbearing and the faithfulness of husbands and wives to each other and their children. Marriage is a vital social institution that promotes that interest.

    The reason the state is in the marriage business in the first place is because sex makes babies and babies need mothers and fathers. As one source has put it, “but for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.” That “institution” is marriage, and it brings together men and women as husbands and wives to become fathers and mothers to any children their unions bring forth.

    This binding together doesn’t happen by accident. Binding fathers to mothers and their children requires strong cultural and legal norms to channel adult sexual desire and behavior into an institution where childbearing leads to responsible childrearing.

    Furthermore, undoubtedly one reason voters in 32 states have voted to protect marriage is the belief that, for children, the ideal situation is to have both a mother and a father. This belief is supported by social science, which demonstrates that children do best when reared by their married biological mothers and fathers. Mothering and fathering are not interchangeable phenomena. The ideal for children is love and attention from both a father and mother, as well as the role modeling that each can provide of masculinity and femininity.

    By embracing same-sex marriage, President Obama has invited everyone in the nation to consider this basic issue: What is marriage? The President has sided with those who would redefine marriage by declaring that mothers and fathers are expendable and sexual complementarity does not matter. Under this view, marriage is whatever two consenting adults want it to be.

    But once the President accepts these ideas, can he explain why marriage should involve only two people? Can he explain why, under his conception, childrearing would continue to have any meaningful relationship to marriage? Can he explain why commitments of permanence and sexual exclusivity should be the norm for marriage? Throw away the core meaning of marriage and these cherished norms logically go with it.

    There is a truth about marriage, and most people intuitively grasp that it has something to with mothers and fathers, the offspring they bear through sexual union, and the mutual cooperation required to effectively rear offspring throughout many years of dependency. The marriage debate is about whether our laws will recognize and promote this truth or, rather, label it a falsehood and force society to fall in line.

    President Obama has made clear where he stands on this issue. In the coming months, voting members of the American public will have the opportunity to do the same.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    44 Responses to Obama and the Truth about Marriage

    1. OBAMA and the TRUTH! You can not fit these two together together.
      IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

    2. OBAMA and the TRUTH. You cant put these together.

    3. Spiritof76 says:

      Gay marriage is a political nonsense. Marriage is a religious concept and predates political philosophies. The federal government has no business in marriage. People decide for themselves their social acceptability. The government can enforce contracts, however. Gay people can cohabit and have equal access to the services offered by commercial entities, if they chose to do so.
      At another level, gay marriage is anti-natural selection. Natural selection according to the Darwin's theory of evolution is that the species adapt to sterngthen their survival by selecting consistent biological route. Gay sex is against that tenet of the natural selection as it can never be productive. That is why, to a large extent, gay oriented people form a very small minority. Gay marriage can not be consummated to yiedl children and bond family.

      • guest says:

        There's more to natural selection than reproduction. Survival is the other side of the coin. If genes that predispose to homosexual orientation were irrelevant to kin survival, they'd have long since been bred out of the gene pool. But there are such genes, and they're persistent in the population. So it stands to reason that here and there, gay uncles and aunts must have done something for nieces and nephews.

        There's also the possibility that gays contribute somehow to group survival. It's a mistake to think that there cannot be any biological point to human homosexual tendencies.

        • Greg says:

          To the extent that homosexuality is genetic, as far as I know there is no way to decide if the gene confers a benefit or is just benign, similar to the question of why people live past reproductive age. To the extent that homosexuality is epigenetic, then we have the problem whether it is heritable or just a developmental malfunction. In any case, a human is a human and is entitled to the same rights. Whether government recognition of "marriage" is one of them is a debatable question which currently suffers from lack of adequate background research.

    4. Lost in the Wilde says:

      I don't ever plan to have children. Am I a threat to the natural order as well?

      • Nybbler says:

        No because when you're gone you're gone. Order restored. :)

      • Doug CA says:

        No one is a threat to the natural order. It cannot be threatened or changed. And he was referring to natural selection. You're not a threat to it, and neither are gays. You just won't participate in the long term survival of the species. It is interesting how this works with gays. Whereas certain immigrant groups can move into California, start having 10 kids per family and in so doing become a majority and take the state back, it's a bit tough for gay couples to procreate a similar majority.

      • Bobbie says:

        You have a right to make your own decisions without them defined in the government "rights" book.
        Not a threat, just paranoid…

      • Bobbie says:

        with overly sensitive tendencies.

    5. JWM says:

      Spiritof76 says it well. Could we not make everyone happy by defining marriage as a religious union, sanctioned by God and the Church, and civil union is a legal bond sanctioned by government to grant gay couples all the same priveleges mariage does? Marriage, of course, would be a dual contract, being both marriage AND civil union, as it now is.

      • box-bb-car says:

        And that distinction is the true reason behind the push to define this as "marriage". If they get item in as marriage, the next step is to claim discrimination on part of clergy for refusing to"marry" gays. You break the churches power, it is much easier to control the people as the state steps in to define morality for the populace. All unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the state, wit the same legal limitations. In doing so, it takes away the discrimination issue.

      • jc123 says:

        If marriage is only a union sanctioned by god and the church, then why are people of other religions allowed to marry? You are allowed to have your own set of ideals and beliefs, but other people should not have to live their lives according to your beliefs. This country allows you the right to freedom of religion. A religion is just a set of ideals and customs that you believe in. By denying gay people the right to marriage, you are denying them the freedom to practice their own set of beliefs.

        • Bobbie says:

          Marriage (in America,) is a word with a defined meaning. People with average mentality are able to perceive the understanding of words with meanings and respect, if they aren't taught through their upbringing first. Nobody is denying any people the right to get married. Some people want to make new sets of rules and add sexual preference to a definition where sexual preference is irrelevant to it's meaning because some people are intolerant, selfish and play dumb for attention and it's a stratagem for more government control (who loves the theatrics while salivating back stage.) Who knows if most of them were manipulated by provocation? Surely government related.

      • BRW says:

        So succinct and so concise and can't be said any better. Hope you don't mind if I copy you. I'll give you all the credit……

    6. Bobbie says:

      Mr. Obama shows his mind is not his own. He'll say anything like bringing Jesus up to say "he died for us" and then minds himself to blaspheme Jesus teachings. He lied about his Christianity as all people he exposes weak he remains weak while stealing money to keep those weak but happy. He dumps needless challenges on Christianity which shows his disrespect for it while he puts Muslims on a pedestal who still can't walk on their own without drawing negative attention. He is weak in his humanity and refuses to gain the strength of good will.

    7. Spencer says:

      Follow the dinero. It is all about spousal benefits.

      Best,

    8. Stirling says:

      The president is doing this purely for political reasons.. His Gay supporters wanted this.. So BHO "comes out of the closet," for all to see.. Our president "Leading from behind again".. (Pun intended).

    9. Leonard says:

      It's time to bring back the joke – let men who want to marry men get married and women who want to marry women get married and in time – No more Democrats!!!!!

    10. steve h says:

      Government has no business in marriage. Keep your religious beliefs out of government. Conservatives are so incredibly selective about which religious beliefs should be uphelp in government and which ones should not. Get them all out – they have no place in government. Who cares if two men or two women want to get married? Heterosexual marriages increasingly end in divorce, which is against religion. If you ban gay marriage, then you should be for banning divorce!

      • Bobbie says:

        if I knew YOU were on the blog I wouldn't have been so quick to assume someone else overly sensitive! steve h has been effected with diseased brain incapabilities, one very important is the ability to reason! Marriage has no regard to sexual preference and that's the only regard homos have. wizen up or cry somewhere else.

      • Bobbie says:

        what the heck are you talking about? Marriage was practiced before government involved themselves.
        I pray you will choose to overcome your mental challenge.

      • 2nd class citizen says:

        Notice how noone addressed the issues you brought up…why not ban adultery??? I believe that is also a sin…hmmmm….

    11. Jeanne Stotler says:

      Obama claims to be a Christian, he Bible states Marriage is a woman leaving her father and mother and joining with her husband and they become one, couldn't be any simpler, asa Catholic and Christain his i what believe and how I lived.

    12. JustDamnMad says:

      Gosh if I were the President's #1 wife I would really be worried. Now that he has publicly said that he supports gay marriage, the next thing on the list is multiple spouses, and then the First Lady may be in trouble. It is interesting to me that he has made such a move just before the election . . . . well, maybe NOT so surprising. I heard on the news today that the gay community organizations were threatening to withdraw support for him if he didn't capitulate!!! He is soooooo predictable . . . he gets mixed up with shady characters who are pushing a questionable agenda, they give him a little $$$, and then they hold his arm behind his back until he screams for mercy and does whateve they demand, expecially if it is his most essential golf arm!!! Left? Right? Either? Neither?

      Hey conservatives, what do you think we should do to get him to "say Uncle" on the free enterprise system, or how about themassive EPA regulations, or the HHS laws that are coming down the pike!!!!!

    13. FakingShock says:

      I am still confused as to why everyone feels the need to pander to about 3% of the population?

    14. Go_Cougs says:

      How is gays getting married going to put a heterosexual marriage at risk?

      Stupid heterosexuals are the ones crapping out too many kids they can't afford and don't want anyways. Looks like the current model isn't doing the nation any good either.

      Heterosexuals are the ones having too many kids or not caring for the ones they have, getting married too young, divorcing, and it's still spiraling downwards. Why not allow another American the benefits of marriage if their going to actually appreciate it and put it to use? At least give them the chance to make the same mistakes. I'm no better than any other America, and neither is anyone in this blog.

      • Brad S. says:

        Who said anything about putting heterosexual marriage at risk ? Stop with the straw man arguments. The problem with the Stupid heterosexuals "crapping out too many kids" is the fact that they are Democrat voters. Their only accomplishment in life is to produce one more generation of government-dependent morons that vote for the candidate with the D behind their name. Cite example – Detroit since 1960. The shining jewel of Democratic rule . . .

        And as an aside. I don't care if gay people get married in whatever ceremony they choose. Just call it a civil union with respect to state contract law.

      • MegaWhy says:

        How very self-righteous of you. "Crapping out too many kids" nice expression. Marriage is by definiton the union of a man and a woman so that a natural family can be formed. Homosexuals have no natural right to be "married". Just because an institution isn't perfect doesn't make it wrong. Funny how the imperfections of marriage and heterosexuality are pointed out and the many serious issues of homosexulaity are never discussed. Why is it that the evil always paint sin as perfection and try to tear down anything that was designed to be good? Same formula over and over..call good evil and evil good.

    15. whartman says:

      Actually, marriage is NOT primarily a religious thing. It is not an invention of bishops, rabbis, and ancient Chinese and Indian spiritual masters, meant to control the masses, It is older than civilization, older than history. Even the most backward and isolated tribes (without the ability to write and thus prehistory), when discovered by those able to write (post history) have consistently had the institution of marriage. It is a universal characteristic of humanity.

      Yes, there have been a few (very few) cultures which accepted homosexuality. The most notable culture would be ancient Greece, a pillar of Western Civilization. Some Greek writers even considered gay sex superior to heterosexual sex. But not for reasons that anyone today, liberal or conservative, would find acceptable. They believed that women were weak and that it thus weakened a man to have sex with a woman. It was not a liberated view, but rather a prejudiced one.

      So in ancient Greece, gay male sex was fully accepted, well beyond anything today, But gay marriage? Perhaps someone in that culture went so far, but it was not the practice. Even they understood that marriage has to do with lifelong commitment to raise children together as man and wife.

      So what we are talking about is reversing tens of thousands of years of universal human experience and culture. And as the writer says so well, advocating gay marriage leaves nothing left to its universal characteristics which have served mankind so well.

    16. Rene says:

      Hit hard on polygamy … All this redefining of marriage means everything including polygamy and worse. So the gays want to be married, what about Muslims who will demand their multiple marriages be recognized? Civil unions should suffice in protecting property, estate issues, etc so gays can be financially on the same playing field as heterosexual couples….. Marriage…no. One man one woman period.

    17. Dianna says:

      Of late, the spotlight has been on a vocal minority's insistance that civil rights must include personal preferences related to same sex unions.

      Can't this same argument be made when it comes to personal preferences for numbers–including polygamy and polyandry–(multiple marriages) as well as lowering the age of sexual consent to say 13? Of course, it will be.

    18. BHUDDA says:

      Why is Obama still holding the post of president ?? He doesn't respect the Constitution ,He violates state laws ,city ordainances and is criminally holding the post of President .He needs taken down hard and now .Deport him to any country that would have him and leave at Gitmo til someone claims him .We are not sure where he was born or what nationality he is .We only know ,he requested a student loan as a forien student .His father was a brittish subject ,his mother is a us ctizen but it all hinges on where he was born and he has a lot of cooperation in hiding things that are relevent to the facts .He has publicly admitted to being Kenyon on several occasions so send his Kenyon butt packing.

    19. Kaydell says:

      Will the real President Obama please stand up? He was never vetted by the Democratic party; we know little of his background other than the book "Dreams of His Fathers" whick is revealing about his early years; we believed the propaganda of HOPE and CHANGE and this we recieved–all hope but no change.

      • MegaWhy says:

        The real Obama is clear to anyone who wants to see: He is a radical liberal, socialist. He is not supportive of family. He is not a fan of free enterprise (except when he is making money). Barack Obama has been opposed to the Constitution all his life. Here is a person who uses the term "I" more than anyone I have ever known. Have you noticed that? You have to be willingly blind to be a supporter of Obama. Only when Evil rules can a man like Obama become president. It is imperitive that he be defeated in the fall. If not, we will see the most anti-american agenda ever proliferated starting in 2013. BHO is already using agencies to circumvent the will of the people – the NLRB, EPA, IRS, DOL, OSHA are all out of control and passing laws that will cripple business in this country. Anyone who has eyes can see, anyone who has ears can hear, anyone who has any sense understans this. Unfortunately half of this country has been bought and paid for and frankly they do not care. God help us!

    20. Robert says:

      I profoundly thank Heritage for this statement on the one institution that is the bedrock of every civilization. In a world which has gone mad with its rejection of sound reasoning as the sole basis for its decisions, the article is solidly reasoned and reasonable.

      I have recently been looking into the subject of the origin of the practice of marriage, and the only source I can find which gives a sensible explanation for its existence is the first two chapters of the book of Genesis.

    21. David A. Stallman says:

      We have individual freedom suported by our Constitution that requires our government to honor individual liberty to all citizens. The same-sex marriage issue is a product of religious dogma.
      We have to decide whether we will e governed by our Constitution or by the pronouncements of religion. Our Constitutional 'rights' includes freedom from religion.

      • MegaWhy says:

        Pleaseeeeeee….why do you try so hard to take God out of everything. That was NEVER the intent. We have a foundation in a belief in God and basic morals. The point is we have rights given to us by God that no man can take away. You are foolish if you begin to believe that man can grant rights and won't take them away. History proves that over and over Being so unidimensional is dangerous! THINK!!
        From the Declaration of Independence you can see that God is central:
        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    22. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Pilate asked the most famous rhetorical question of all time: "And what is truth?"

    23. ConservaDave says:

      Well, isn't it Obama's purpose and goal to undermine American social and sexual norms and destroy the very fabric of our culture and society anyway? He's undermined, weakened and demoralized the military. He has destroyed American pride by eliminating the space program. Hollywood, the MSM and the so-called educators are already in the tank for him and his agenda. He won't protect the U.S. from the anti-U.S. illegal border crossers. He loots the treasury and attacks and destroys our businesses. He's even tried to dictate to the church what, where and when to worship. What should we expect from someone who wants to "fundamentally change" America?

    24. J Nemeth says:

      Taking the conversation a step further, they want to add children. Here's the flaw. The logic they use to justify their homosexuality is that it''s their "natural" orientation….to be gay. But having children is not natural to gays. So using their "it's natural" rationale, they shouldn't be lowed to adopt children.

    25. Greg says:

      Thanks for the article which brings up the real question, "Why does government formally recognize marriage"? I suspect that the original intent was the same for all human societies, to support a family structure that insures survival of that society. Modern law has used the status of "married" for other purposes such as income tax filing. So rather than grant "married" status to every conceivable human pair, we need first to investigate how the status "married" is used in Federal law, State law, common law, and regulation. Most of these laws were established when nearly everyone lived in a nuclear family. Times have changed. Now un-married couples and deliberately childless couples live together, and large numbers of families are single-parent. Also there are many second marriages in old age beyond childbearing. Are most of our laws that depend on the status "married" now obsolete? Perhaps we should be denying "married" status to more couples rather than expanding the franchise?

    26. Lorene says:

      Whatever one thinks of the importance of marriage, please respect the right of each individual to choose whether to marry or to whom.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×