Obama Declares June National LGBT Pride Month

On June 1, 2009, the Obama Adminstration released a statement declaring the month of June to be henceforth a celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender pride.  One might wonder why our Federal Government is endorsing  a lifestyle that cannot contribute positively to society as a whole, rather than celebrating lasting marriage between a man and a woman, which is ultimately the only relationship with a profoundly good effect on children.

Frank Turek’s article, “Gay Marriage:  Even Liberals Know It’s Bad,” addresses the issue of homosexual marriage specifically:

Why not legalize same-sex marriage?  Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

How so?

The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what?

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy…

Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children?   And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society.  Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.

Mr. Turek shows examples of countries that have legalized gay marriage  in his article that have seen a breakdown in marriages altogether, in addition to a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock and a disintegration of families.  There is no possible benefit to society in endorsing something that can lead to the breakdown of families and depriving children of either a mother or a father and a stable home.  Many studies show the variety of negative effects that children from broken homes suffer, and anything that could lead to its increase should not be endorsed in any way by the government.