The Case for Traditional Marriage/Program 1

Introduction

John Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. We’ve got a great one for you today. We’re talking about the important question, what should the definition of marriage be in our country? You don’t want to miss this program, folks. We’ve got three great guests. Should we keep marriage to one man and one woman? Is there a case to be made for keeping traditional marriage?

One of the reasons I did this program is that when I look at FOX News, and when I look at CNN, I don’t see anybody making the case. And when our guys that you see on the set are there, a lot of times they’re cut off or they’re not able to give the full answers. So, I thought, we need to have a time where we can present the evidence.

You already know that if you get a marriage license today, there are requirements you must fulfill. You must be an adult, and marry an adult, you can’t marry a child, you can’t already be married, you can’t marry a close family member, you must marry someone of the opposite sex. But now, we’ve got less than 2% of the population wanting to change the standard definition of marriage and force a new radical definition on all the rest of us. They want marriage to be this: just two or more people of any gender who are willing to make a public declaration of love to each other. And my guests today believe this will be very harmful to our society.

And my guests are, and you’ve seen them all on TV, Tony Perkins, who is the President of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. He’s a former member of the Louisiana State Legislature, where he served for eight years. Dr. James Garlow, who was one of the leaders that led the successful campaign,… I’m so impressed with what you did out there, Jim. I mean how many interviews did you do? 800 interviews on TV during that time?

Dr. James Garlow: Nearly.

Ankerberg: Which passed, you know, this campaign passed Proposition 8 in California, which seven million Californians voted to keep traditional marriage to be the law of the land. He’s also Chairman of Renewing American Leadership, out of Washington, DC. And he’s the Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. And then we’ve got Craig Parshall. Love Craig, he’s our Senior Vice President, General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. He has tried cases at the Supreme Court, he defends us up there, he does a lot of other things for the NRB; he’s our protection.

So, let’s start with a question here, Tony. Does it really matter how we define marriage? A lot of folks say, “Hey, what’s the big deal?”

Tony Perkins: Well, John, I think it’s a great place to start. I think, first, you should make the point very clear that marriage is not the creation of law. I mean, it predates the law, it predates the Constitution, it is a human institution. And the social science makes it very clear that the future of our civilization rests on keeping marriage between a man and a woman. And the social sciences are very clear on that. In fact, one of the Canadian scholars, Margaret Somerville, says that “through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people, who will together transmit human life.” And it’s only a man and a woman that can transmit and create life to the next generation, give them life, protect it, and promote it. And that’s why it’s critical, and all the evidence suggests that.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Supreme Court, Craig, said something about that too.

Craig Parshall: Yeah. 1942, interesting, a case called Skinner vs. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court made it very clear. It said that marriage is foundational, it’s fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race. So, we’re not just talking about the survival of American society, the way of life we know here, we’re talking about something that is intrinsic to every successful, thriving civilization in the history of man.

Ankerberg: Jim, why would changing the definition of marriage be harmful to our society? This question comes up all the time.

Garlow: Well, for one thing, it would be robbing us of the consent of the governed, and the people have spoken so forcefully on this issue: 31 states out of 31 states have said, we believe natural traditional marriage, in other words, one man, one woman. But to cut to the chase, really the core of the issue, for the sake of children. How many children would like to be raised in a home where they’re deprived of either a mother or a father? Now, there might sometimes that kids would like to not have a mother or father, but the fact is, children need a mother and father, and they deserve a mother and father. And by redefining, every one of those marriages is either deprived of a mother or a father.

Perkins: Jim, I think that’s a great point. When you look at, by law, what we would be creating or denying, rather, is children a mother and a father. And we’ve got an abundance of social science research that we’ve accumulated over the last three to four decades, as a result of another public policy – no fault divorce – that shows very clearly that it’s not just two parents, it’s not just, you know, having two adults in your life, but it is a mom and a dad. And children, both boys and girls, derive a lot of their understanding of socialization from both their mother and their father.

Ankerberg: Yeah. And we’re going to actually document the social research that shows that. It’s just not us saying this, this is documented in the social sciences and there’s a ton of it.

Perkins: But, Jim’s point is that we would be, by law, refusing or denying the children, the benefit of the mom or the dad. That is a very significant policy.

Ankerberg: Yeah. I actually read, too, that you have homosexual scholars that are saying it’s not a good idea to legalize same-sex marriage.

Parshall: You know, John, to his credit, there’s a Canadian scholar by the name of Paul Nathanson, and he came out with this quote. And I want you to listen very carefully, because as an active homosexual himself, yet a scholar, he had to admit, “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, every human society has had to promote it actively. Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm that limits marriage to unions of men and women.” Then he adds that people are “wrong in assuming that society can do without it.” So, he’s saying the same thing the Supreme Court said about how fundamental marriage of one man and one woman is to survival of society.

Ankerberg: Alright, Jim, but the question continues to come up, “I mean, I don’t understand, how will having same-sex families hurt the traditional family?”

Garlow: Well, the fact is, when they redefine it for some, they’ve redefined it for all of us. They’ve forced all of us to that new definition. And there are consequences, they may be unintended but they’re still consequences. And those consequences are a loss of personal freedoms, a loss of parental rights, and a loss of religious liberties. Those three always follow, where the government has a vested interest in protecting the definition of, so called, same-sex marriage.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Craig, explain this thing. I mean how will it affect me? I mean, I’m happily married, I’ve got my daughter and you guys all have your children and so on. I mean, how will this actually affect our freedoms, as he says?

Parshall: It’s important to know what the supporters of this gay-rights movement are saying. I was in a senate hearing recently where one of the senators, a United States Senator who was supporting some gay-rights legislation said, “We don’t want mere tolerance any more, we want to force the American people to accept the rightness of homosexuality.” Now, how does this really play out? Well, there’s a ripple-out effect, when the law does something by dropping a stone in the pond, there are multiple ripples in the culture. One of them is the fact that if your children are in public school, or even in private school, there’s going to be a movement to force curriculum to teach your child that homosexuality is on the same equal plane as heterosexuality. And if your child speaks out of it, he’s going to be marginalized. If you come in, as a parent, to try to correct that curriculum, you’ll also be marginalized, if not discriminated against. If you decide that your Christian conscience is more important than, let’s say, providing services…. There’s a case down in New Mexico where there’s a photographer, does wedding pictures, that said, “Well, I’m sorry, I can’t officiate, can’t take photographs of lesbian or homosexual marriage,” ends up to be sued, fined, penalized by government law. This violation of Christian conscience is the next way that will certainly occur if we continue on the path of recognizing homosexual rights.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Tony, the thing is, also, we’re going to show on the next program the Parker clip, okay? But set that up for us right now.

Perkins: Well, what happened in May of 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court forced same-sex marriage on that state, by September, gay advocates were already at work changing the curriculum in the school system that was making it gay-friendly, to teach about same-sex marriage, from kindergarten on up. And there was one parent in Lexington, the Parker family, who, you know, objected to his first grader getting this diversity bag, which had all of this propaganda, pro-homosexual propaganda. And he was denied the ability to remove his child from that instruction. So, as Jim points out, it’s a loss of this parental responsibility, or parental rights, is that you are no longer able to control what your children are taught, even if it’s in contradiction to your religious convictions, which, I believe stumbles, or more than stumbles, I think it stomps upon the First Amendment, our Freedom of Religion.

Garlow: In the case of Dave and Tonya Parker, I’ve spent quite a bit of time, as you have, with them, interviewing them. And Massachusetts has opt-out laws, so the parents should be able to opt their children out, but when they tried to exercise that, the state officials refused to allow them to remove their child. And they said, you know, you can only remove your child for discussion of sexuality. This is not sexuality, this is homosexuality.

Ankerberg: Because it’s the law.

Garlow: They said because the state has accepted it, you have no right to remove your child.

Ankerberg: Yeah. And he said, well, we got to do something about that, and what do they do? They put him in handcuffs and took him to jail,

Garlow: This is a guy with a PhD in chemistry. His wife’s also a chemist, these are very, very bright people. They ended up going through a court case, cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the judge finally says, “We just recommend that you…” now watch this language, “…segregate yourself from the school system.” Look, where have we heard the word segregation? Telling the Christians they have to segregate? You got to pay the taxes, but you can’t have the benefit of the public school.

I was in a discussion or a vigorous debate on a station in Los Angeles in which the question was posed by the moderator, “Can’t heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, can’t those two views just co-exist, get along fine?” I was going to respond, but never got a chance to, because someone on the other side jumped in and said, immediately said, “No, absolutely, they cannot. One will win and one will lose.” And he said it right. That’s exactly correct.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Alright, we’re going to take a break. When we come back, we’re going to continue with this. And what I want you folks to realize is what we are facing, as a country. Certain things have been tried to be enacted in the states and in the governments all over the place, and we’re going to get an update of where we’re at. What’s been happening with the Defense of Marriage Act? What’s been happening with the Federal Marriage Amendment? And these are the guys that can tell us. And so stick with us, we’re going to come back. This is going to be fascinating, it also tells you that we’re hanging by a hair here, and things could change very rapidly in our country. Stick with us, we’ll be right back.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’re back. We’re talking about the question, what will the definition of marriage be in our country? Are we going to legalize same-sex marriage? Will there implications? Will it hurt our society? And, Tony, when we talk about that, in terms of background, the states have recognized they wanted to protect traditional marriage. How did that start? How did that whole movement get going, and what’s happened? Where are we at?

Perkins: Well, Craig speaks to this better than I do. But in… Family law has always been reserved for the states. The states have been the defining factor of the laws pertaining to marriage; but there’s been a common thread, they’ve just mirrored what has been there in human history. And it’s been attempted in the courts, dating back to the 70s, where same-sex couples have tried to seek recognition, and they’ve been outright rejected by the courts. In fact, some of the strongest statements defending marriage come from those court cases, from those judges. But in the early 90s they were successful in a case in Hawaii, which led to one of the first votes. Hawaii, the citizens of Hawaii, voted to give the legislature the ability to define marriage, not the courts. Well, that started the whole, kind-of movement to realize marriage is under attack, not only from, you know, no-fault divorce, but now a very frontal attack from same-sex marriage. So, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, overwhelmingly by Congress, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat – Republican-controlled congress, Democratic President signed it, no questions asked. I mean, it was overwhelmingly in their support for it. Since that time, you’ve had 30 states that have voted on Constitutional Amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Ankerberg: Yeah, the people in the entire state.

Perkins: In the entire state. And in total you have 45 states out of 50 that have either a statutory or a constitutional definition of marriage. So, to the people, they get it. It’s just the judges are having a hard time understanding this.

Ankerberg: Yeah. And I think, I think the folks need to realize when that thing went to the Senate and the House, when you talk about overwhelmingly, okay, this was only 1996, 85 guys in the Senate voted yes for this thing, to keep traditional marriage, okay. Only 14 guys were against it. House of Representatives, it was huge – 342 to 67.

Parshall: It wasn’t close.

Ankerberg: And Clinton said, “You know, I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, but that’s not what’s happening when I’m signing this bill, okay? So, I mean the tidal wave was on, going that direction. But, then what happened?

Parshall: Well, the Defense of Marriage Act essentially does two things; one, it preserves the ability of the states to define marriage. So it doesn’t impose a definition, it just says that, you know, for the states, this is what marriage is, and you can’t force the definition of another state. In 2004 when Massachusetts created same-sex marriage, it creates a couple marrying in Massachusetts, going back to Tennessee or Oklahoma or Louisiana and seeking recognition for that marriage. It protects those states. And then, secondly, for the benefit of the Federal Government, it defines marriage. It defines marriages between a union of one man and one woman, for Social Security benefits, for any other type of governmental recognition. That has been under steady assault of this administration, which has been using the back door to redefine marriage.

Ankerberg: Alright. Now, Jim, you know, you’re fresh out of this thing, of Proposition 8 in California, one of the leaders helping to move this, the whole state, 7 million Californians vote up and vote for it. And a judge,… Tell the story. How did you feel?

Garlow: Well, we need to get a perspective on. The Californians already had voted on this before, in the year 2000. Sixty one percent voted in favor of traditional, natural marriage. Then Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, violates the law intentionally, starts performing so called marriages of same-sex people. Knowing that was going to go to the Supreme Court then, the citizens rose up. They gathered 1.2 million signatures on petitions, so we could get it back on the ballot, this time not as simply a law in the family code, but as an Amendment to the Constitution. We achieved that goal, and then it went to a vote. It was thoroughly vetted. Each side raised and spent about $40 million each.

We finally came to the vote. We won. Traditional marriage prevailed by 52.3%. And then it was challenged immediately to the California Supreme Court. We won again, handily won again and thought that was kind of the end of it. And then along comes two lawyers, who decide, “We’re going to challenge it based on the US Constitution.” I don’t think most of Americans realize, this is no longer a Californian deal. They, “Oh, it’s California and their Prop 8 thing.” No, this is now national; this would affect every other state. And so it went to Judge Vaughn Walker, and he has simply run roughshod over the will of the people. Seven million people expressed themselves, not in one election, but two elections, saying marriage is one man, one woman. He blew that off. The consent of the governed was completely trashed on that occasion.

Ankerberg: Yeah, and talk to that, Craig, I mean, in his ruling he simply said, “Yeah, it really doesn’t matter, how many millions of people voted for this thing, we have a fundamental right that’s at stake.” Now, define the truth, the good and the bad, of what he’s saying.

Parshall: Well, let me first of all, as a preface, let me tell you what they were counting on. The radical proponents of same-sex marriage were counting on the fact that the law would be disregarded and a federal judge would use his own private opinions. Now, that’s not my words, those are the words of David Boies, who was one of the lead attorneys, the legal architect of this entire lawsuit to attack Proposition 8. He had a TIME magazine interview, and he said, “Look, it’s without doubt that the Justice’s private views contribute, really contribute significantly to the outcome in these kinds of cases.” So, what they’re counting on is not the law, but personal opinions being driven by biased, and the worldview of that particular judge.

And let’s take Judge Walker, as an example. He accepted the argument that every opposition to homosexual on moral or religious ground is based on fear. He accepted the preposterous testimony of expert witnesses, of political scientists, as a matter of fact, who said that, homosexuals in America are discriminated against because they are politically powerless. Now, anybody who spends time in Washington, DC, knows that’s absurd. They have a President right now, sitting in the office, Barack Obama, who was elected in part by the gay-rights lobby, who he courted. They have passed hate-crimes law, top of their agenda, got it passed, House, Senate, signed into law by the President. Other laws are presently pending, initiated by gay-rights people. In fact, one of the economists, in this very case, an economist who was testifying for the proponents of same-sex marriage, said, look, on average, the average homosexual couple is much more economically affluent and powerful than the comparable heterosexual couple. Now, does this sound like a minority, and insular minority, that’s discriminated against because they’re politically powerless? That suggestion is absolutely patently absurd.

Ankerberg: What about the thing where he says, you know, this is a fundamental right, that it’s an equal right, you can’t deny it?

Parshall: Well, here’s a fundamental right. Fundamental right has been defined. The formula by the Supreme Court in repeated cases has said a fundamental right is a right that is deeply rooted in the history, traditions and practices of a nation. Now, the gay-rights movement started around in 1969 in a riot outside of a gay bar in New York. How could we possibly say it’s deeply rooted in the history of America, compared to hundreds of years, thousands of years, actually, of our western civilization, honoring one man, one woman, as the definition of marriage.

Perkins: Well, John, what he does in his opinion, when you read his opinion, is that he points to marriage as being this fundamental right, but he steps over the fact that we’re talking about same-sex marriage, we’re not talking about marriage. And so, there’s a, really a slight of hand, and just kind of glossing over the fact that we’re talking about a whole new definition of marriage. And that’s really what’s at stake here, is that this is, as Jim pointed out, this is a redefinition of marriage for the rest of us. And I’d also point out, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that Judge Walker is one of two homosexuals that sit on the Federal bench. So, the idea that his worldview played a part in this decision is clear when he totally dismisses all of the social science put forth by the proponents of Prop 8 and just embraces, without critical review, what I would call propaganda, to some extent, put forth by those who are trying to overturn Prop 8.

Ankerberg: Craig, the fact is, okay, with that in mind, we’ve tried to have a Federal Marriage Amendment, okay. And there have been attempts. Tell us the background on that and where are we at?

Parshall: Well, first of all, the attempts, unfortunately, to get a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States have been unsuccessful. And I think it needs to be reiterated over and over again, to contrast this movement with the failure of the gay-rights movement, to try to get a Constitutional Amendment to recognize homosexuality. Remember that the Fourteenth Amendment recognized the right of African-Americans, or people of any race, not to be discriminated against based on race. Twentieth century, right of women to vote, suffrage, was a Constitutional Amendment. That was the mechanism that the founding fathers wanted. When we were going to create a new form of civil liberty, that’s the mechanism to add it to the Constitution. And yet, the gay-rights movement has not tried a Constitutional Amendment. Why? Because they know it’s easier to get one federal judge to rewrite the Constitution than try to get the American people to agree to a proposition that the American people have never agreed to.

Ankerberg: Absolutely a great point. Let me also bring up the fact that in the Senate, June 7, 2006, only 48 senators voted for the Amendment, 48 voted against it and three abstained. Okay, you got to have leaders that are actually going to be in favor of this. Now, it’s amazing how this differs with the vote that they did on the DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. In the House of Representatives, it came down to 236 Congressmen voted yes and 187 voted no. They were 47 short over on that side. So, the thing is, there are elections that are coming up, and as people choose their leaders, they need to keep in mind what these folks actually believe. Because you can’t get it passed up there, unless you have folks that are going to stand with us. Now, what do we need to do?

Perkins: Well, there’s a disconnect between the way Washington sees the situation and the rest of America. Every time it’s been put on the ballot, in the last 14 years, it has passed overwhelmingly. Only one time it failed, in Arizona, they came back and redid it. So the people have spoken on this, it’s very clear. But I think what we see with the Tea Party movements, there’s a big disconnect between Washington and America on a lot of things, but nothing is more fundamental than the issue of marriage. And so, when we support a candidate for office, we need to know clearly where they stand on the issue of marriage, traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, and would they be willing to support an Amendment to the Constitution that would make clear what Craig said, that there is no room to slide a redefinition of marriage into the Constitution?

Ankerberg: As we do these programs, Jim, I am aware of many friends that I’ve had that have had inclinations for same-sex relationships. And they’re struggling with that. And these words come across awfully harsh. That’s not our purpose. We can love them and disagree. And give us a word of hope along that line.

Garlow: During the Prop 8 battle in California, there were tens of thousands of Californians on a 40 day prayer and fast time. I was one of those. And one of the things I asked God to do was soften my heart and give me a love for people who struggle with same-sex attraction. And God honored that prayer. And I found a great deal of concern in my heart, bubbling up, for those who struggle with this. As a result, there was such an outbreak of love for people in that struggle in our own church, that people in our own congregation began to out themselves. You would think during the vigors and heat of Prop 8, it would have been just the opposite, but they outed themselves because they saw what an environment, atmosphere of love and acceptance it was. We’re not into bashing people who struggle with that, because that would be contrary to God’s ways. At the same time, we’re defending marriage because God says this is the way marriage is.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Alright, next week, folks, you’ve got to join us because we’re going to turn the corner. How will legalizing same-sex marriage really harm your family, your personal freedoms, your right to free speech, and your religious freedoms? We’re going to tell the stories, not what’s happening in Canada, Sweden, and all other places, we’re going to talk about what’s happening right now here in this country. And you won’t believe it! Please join us next week.