Why is there a lack of roots in some children, such as family and medical histories? Let’s look at some recent news: On May 9th, President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to publicly declare his support for same-sex marriage. Was this new for him? What was his previous stand? Records show he made comments regarding such an arrangement as early as the 1990s. When competing for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he stated, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” However, while campaigning during the 2008 presidential campaign he disclosed, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix."

So in January 2009, he opposed a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, but also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, and California’s famed Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage. Did God get sifted out of his mix? In December 2010, the White House website stated that he opposed a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. With his recent announcement, standing up for the arrangement, he explained that his position was “evolving,” but knowing his past opinions, did it really? (And if a Republican sallied back and forth as he did, it would be nothing less than “flip-flopping!”)

Residents of California have twice voiced their support for traditional marriage. In 2000, Proposition 22 passed by an amazing 61% of the vote! Yet the California Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional only because, and in the opinion of four judges, it was “discriminatory.” This ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution or historic reasons!

Not to be deterred, California’s pro-family groups again gathered the required signatures and Proposition 8 went on the ballot in 2008. This measure would add a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the California constitution. Again it passed by a majority. The same-sex marriage proponents were not about to acquiesce, so, as expected, it again went to the courts, and again California was betrayed. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is gay, overturned the law in Aug 2010. Appeals sent it back to the courts, and in February 2012 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court, one of the most liberal in the nation, upheld the decision. It is now before the Supreme Court.

The California Attorney General had issued a press release on December 19, 2008 stating “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.” Apparently the majority of the people in California (and other states) have felt it was justified.

As of May 8, 2012, with the passing of North Carolina's gay marriage ban, twelve states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and thirty via the state's constitution. Add that up: Citizen of 38 states have voted against same-sex marriages! Only seven states have legalized these marriages. It is expected to be a big issue in the coming elections–-many Democrat candidates support same-sex marriage; Republicans, including Mitt Romney, are against.

Gays and lesbians can, and have been co-habituating openly for some time. That’s their prerogative, but is it right and fair to force their lifestyle on children? This is concerning, especially when they are unable to adopt, and choose to bring children into their lives by men hiring lawyers to find female surrogates to carry their children, or women contracting for male sperm. Lease a womb or buy an egg.

In 2007, Maryland’s highest court ruled that a birth certificate could be issued with only the name of the child’s father. A number of state laws provide a way for adults to produce a child and legally be the only parent. A modern-day miracle to have children born with “no mother,” at least not listed on the birth certificate. Also, a modern-day tragedy for such children.

Under such arrangements the child would have no knowledge of one, or both, of his or her parents, begetting a life filled with questions and wondering, a life with a sparse, or no family history, a life with a partial birthright. How did their ancestors arrived in this great country, what were their struggles and accomplishments? That, and other fulfilling information will be forever absent from their lives.

The current protection of anonymity does a disservice to children who might be left, not only with sparse knowledge of their identity, but also of their important genetic background. This genetic information can be significant regarding health conditions that might run in one’s family. Family history is the best source for finding out about traits that might be possible health problems or disorders. Incomplete information, or total lack of, which faces these often commercially transacted children, is troubling and serious. In all fairness to them, the states should end their practice of anonymous sperm and egg donation.

If same-sex marriage is made a national statute, would it make any difference in your life? Unfortunately, children are not the only causalities.

In a Washington Post article, David Wiegel listed several examples of how, where it is the law, “Same-sex marriage is leading to a campaign of repression and censorship against religious individuals and institutions.” He also cited examples of “college students punished for refusing to support same-sex parenting, graduate students thrown out of counseling programs for refusing to affirm homosexual sex, denials of tax exemptions for church land when the church refuses to host same-sex ceremonies, photographers punished for refusing to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies, and social work licenses threatened merely because the social worker publicly supported a state marriage amendment.”

After the same-sex mandate went into effect in Massachusetts, officials attempted to force Catholic Charities to match children up for adoption with same-sex couples. To live their convictions, and concern for the children, they stopped providing adoption services. Same-sex marriage can, and is resulting in less liberty, not more.

The act of marriage between a man and woman has been created for only one purpose and that is for the biological and historical protection of potential children and their descendants. It has nothing to do with discrimination against “gays,” since equal rights are now given by most states to couples of the same sex who want a legal or civil union, or even a blessed covenant. Indeed, the practice of discrimination is actually being used against the adopted children of same sex marriage!

But if a national law is enacted where men can marry men and women can marry women, won’t others cry discrimination? Won’t those wanting polygamy insist on equal treatment? (And, this won’t be the Mormons. It has given them enough headaches, wasn’t popular with them in the first place, never practiced by over 3%, and was rescinded in 1890.) Will our society expect similar claims of discrimination from NAMBLA, the North America Man-Boy Love Association? These followers are already studying the political trail used by “gays” to reach their current status! Might religious universities and other church organizations be required to accept membership, and even leadership positions to individuals who are knowingly members of NAMBLA -- the Boy Scouts, for instance?

Then there are other groups who might push for legalizing the abhorrent practice of bestiality. This sounds unbelievable, but it does exist in shocking numbers! Such an anti-discrimination law could also cause every Bible believing church and synagogue in the country to lose their tax exempt status. And, this is only a partial list of problems!

In President Obama’s recent announcement of support for “marriage equality” [the new term for same-sex marriage] he insisted it “strengthens families." He also said, "I want everyone treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we've extended rights and responsibilities to everybody.” No one asked what kind of “rights?

What if those “rights” go against Judeo-Christian beliefs? Is President Obama asking Americans to offend their God, as many ministers and rabbis maintain? Is this fair treatment?

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows. Results of research regarding “The Future of Children,” published jointly by the non-partisan Brookings Institution and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School agree and found that children from two-parent (father and mother) families are better off emotionally, socially and economically. (Children of co-habituating couples are also found to be negatively affected.)

So who suffers when traditional marriage is abandoned? Many, and especially the innocent motherless or fatherless children who are clearly not “treated fairly” in this important aspect and must flounder through life as children with fractured roots.
Vote wisely, America.

Grace Guymon Jones, A Writer for newspapers for over fifty years, including a column on parenting. Also a former elementary school teacher.

Lee Ellis, Retired V.P. CBS and Gannett Publications (USA Weekend)


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...