Senator Harry Reid is adamant that he supports the proposition that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman, its just that he doesn’t want it to be the law of all the land.  It is okay if it is the law of some of the land, like in Nevada where the people have spoken by a large margin to define marriage as part of the state’s constitution, just not every state – in the name of diversity and acceptance, of course.

There are some lands where it is okay for Americans to have varying alternative definitions of marriage in the name of acceptance of others. For instance, in Massachusetts, a land far away in the northeast, it is okay for two persons of the same gender to marry and, one would also assume, raise children without a mother or father in the home, depending upon the respective slant of the couple.

So in that part of the land, children apparently don’t need the balance that is provided in nature because it is more important to recognize the rights of adults to participate in sexual behavior that deviates from the norm.  All children need in Massachusetts is a mommy and another mommy and a certificate from the state that says it is okay for them to live without a dad. We all know that fatherless homes have done wonders for our inner-city and divorced families and we expect the same positive outcomes in the future for the children of same-sex families in Massachusetts. I am so relieved that as a person in Nevada, I don’t need to worry about children in Massachusetts, because Harry has given me a way out.

Up north, in the culturally rich and free speaking state of New York, there are two sixteen year old boys who want to marry. That part of the land is too far north and then very far east, so it really isn’t the land that any reasonable person needs to consider in adopting the protection of marriage law. I am uncertain as to how two boys can have a baby, but assuming science or luck afford them this right, we are very certain that the loving nature of this union and a certificate of marriage in their hands will compensate for the tender, loving touch of a real mother.

The harsh reality is that marriage has been about one woman and one man from the beginning of time.  If you are a believer in the Evangelical theory of literalism of the Bible, then that was about eight thousand years ago.  If you believe evolution had something to do with the creation of man, then that history goes back fifty thousand years.  Either way, it is a long journey back in time to change on the whim of a judge who thinks the rights of two gay men outweigh the right of children to a father and a mother.

It really doesn’t matter if you approach the issue of marriage from a religious or cultural perspective, the answer is really the same.  Marriage is about two committed individuals who can create children through nature and by the nature of their union and then raise children in an environment where both genders are present. That has been the definition of marriage for longer than mankind has kept records.  What is not the definition of marriage is variations of that theme that do not allow for the natural reproduction of children or at least the potential for such production.  

Where homosexual relationships fail in the marriage category is in having children.  There is no potential for creating life in these unions – short of obtaining serious assistance from outside sources. To that end, it is not the discrimination of other people that is causing them great concern, but rather the discrimination of nature that will not let them reproduce. Without the potential for procreation, they cannot be married. At best, those in a gay and loving companionship can have a loving companionship, but nothing more.  It is not marriage as there is no legacy that can go into the next generation with the genetic material of both parents. At best, only the genetic material of one partner could ever reach into the future – thus leaving one parent entirely in the dark. Marriage is defined by the children created in the union that share genetic material.  Jesus Christ said that a man and a woman would leave their parents and become one flesh. This is the very definition of marriage given by the ultimate authority on marriage.

Some have argued that any loving home can satisfy the need of a child for a proper upbringing. On its face, this is wrong-thinking. Every child in society is entitled to a mother and a father and as the children are too young to determine that, then it is the right of society to speak for that child.  Senator Harry Reid appears to believe that some children in some lands are entitled to such protections and others will simply have to make do given the fact that the judges in their lands believe that it is acceptable to have a two men enter into a committed relationship in order to raise children.

So Senator, in which land should children be entitled to a father and a mother and which land should we provide alternatives? Your argument that this is a state’s rights issue – so please choose the states where children will have the rights to a mother and father and those states where we will simply turn a blind eye.

Is it so impossible for us to believe that children should have a national standard when it comes to the potential of being raised by a man and a woman.

Of course, some will argue that the most important thing is that children be loved. In response, I will tell you that my mother-in-law loves my children, but I don’t want them raised by her.  Likewise, two women might love a child as their own, but the reality is that try as you might, one of those parents is not the “parent” at all genetically speaking. How committed will a non-genetic parent be to the non-genetically related child when a break-up occurs?

In contrast, a parent who has genetic connections to a child will more often than not take some interest in his or her off-spring.  Love is only one aspect of that connection. Genes, pride, compassion, empathy and the fact that the kid has the same buck teeth as the parent all make family relationships a lot more compelling.

In the end, there should not be a “land” throughout all the land where a child does not have the potential of being raised by a male parent and a female parent who are both genetically related to the child.

Senator Harry Reid has stated that the states should control their own destiny.  What is interesting about this argument is that it begs the question.  Anyone who understands Constitutional law will quickly realize that to change the Constitution of the United States, each state must necessarily speak on the issue.  In essence, each state legislature will have a turn to have its say on the issue as the proposed Amendment must be adopted by the states in order to modify the Constitution.  Just how, then, will the states be deprived of their say in the matter? If the states don’t like the Amendment, then they should vote against the Amendment.  If enough states vote against it, then the issue is dead.

The sad reality about our society is that we are ultimately and forever selfish beyond belief. Women want the right to kill their babies and terminate their pregnancies so they aren’t strapped down by little brats around their ankles and gay couples want the right to play house and deprive children of a home with a father and a mother.

Someone has forgotten to ask the children what they want. In a recent study of children from gay couples, all the children wanted was to be normal – with a dad and a mom. They had all the love they could stand from their same gender parents, but at the end of the day, the other kids had something they didn’t – a traditional set of parents who were married. That speaks volumes as to why we should be passing the Constitutional Amendment to once and for all define marriage as being between one man and one woman.