Traditional marriage movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The traditional marriage movement is a political movement whose participants believe that only unions between one man and one woman should be legally defined as marriages. The movement has recently gained momentum and visibility in reaction to the increased acceptance, in certain parts of the world, of broadening the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex partners.

Gary Glenn, a prominent member of the movement in the U.S. state of Michigan, has described the movement as "...a burgeoning alliance of white evangelicals, conservative Roman Catholics and African-American Protestants for whom gay marriage is like abortion: non-negotiable."^[1] The movement also includes noted religious organizations such as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the Rabbinical Council of America, which has expressed in a press release that "the term 'marriage' cannot be construed or applied to same-sex relationships, as to do so is to deprive the term of its fundamental and defining meaning."^[2]

1 Opposition to same-sex marriage
- 1.1 Protection of the family and society
2 Organizations
3 See also
4 References

[edit] Opposition to same-sex marriage

The traditional marriage movement advocates for its definition of marriage specifically in political opposition to same-sex marriage. In particular, the traditional marriage movement justifies its definition by claiming that it has been universally upheld throughout the history of the institution of marriage itself. Supporters of the traditional marriage movement also point to religious and moral convictions, as well as religious texts such as the Bible and Torah, in trying to demonstrate the rootedness of their definition of marriage in longstanding traditions. Supporters of the movement argue that the alleged historical precedence of their definition of marriage - its enshrinement in "tradition" - justifies the need to protect it from the changes sought by advocates of same-sex marriage. One example of such an argument from tradition appears in a 1996 essay by Bill Bennett published in Newsweek claiming that "broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition," and that "the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution."^[3]

[edit] Protection of the family and society

Leaders and supporters of the traditional marriage movement often insist that the legalization of same-sex marriage, by altering the definition of marriage they regard as traditional, would harm families and society as a whole. For instance, in an opinion piece published by the National Review, Sam Brownback, a Republican U.S. Senator from Kansas wrote, "If we fail to protect traditional marriage... the costs to our society... would be significant — even devastating — when measured in terms of the effects on our central social institution, the family."^[4] He expresses the view that opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage protects the family, and therefore society as a whole, by promoting the well-being of children. He refers to a study carried out by Child Trends, a child-welfare organization, which claimed there is "[v]alue for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents." He further asserts that "[r]edefining marriage is certain to harm children."^[4]

In the context of moral philosophy, bio-ethicist Margaret Somerville has raised similar objections to same-sex marriage, which she claims to violate the "rights" of children to be raised by both of their biological parents.^[5]