Publications.
"WBF International
30th of December 2015
We want to share a very interesting article reported in the New York Times early this year, about the benefits of marriage. The articles reveal that the benefits of marriage, although in decline in modern society, still outweigh those of singleness. Here are the reasons why:
Original article (8th of January 2015): by Claire Caine Miller: "Study finds More reasons to Get and stay married":
~"A new economics paper has some old-fashioned advice for people navigating the stresses of life: Find a spouse who is also your best friend.
Social scientists have long known that married people tend to be happier, but they debate whether that is because marriage causes happiness or simply because happier people are more likely to get married. The new paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, controlled for pre-marriage happiness levels.
It concluded that being married makes people happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who remain single – particularly during the most stressful periods, like midlife crises.
Even as fewer people are marrying, the disadvantages of remaining single have broad implications. It’s important because marriage is increasingly a force behind inequality. Stable marriages are more common among educated, high-income people, and increasingly out of reach for those who are not. That divide appears to affect not just people’s income and family stability, but also their happiness and stress levels
A quarter of today’s young adults will have never married by 2030, which would be the highest share in modern history, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet both remaining unmarried and divorcing are more common among less-educated, lower-income people. Educated, high-income people still marry at high rates and are less likely to divorce.
Those whose lives are most difficult could benefit most from marriage, according to the economists who wrote the new paper, John Helliwell of the Vancouver School of Economics and Shawn Grover of the Canadian Department of Finance. “Marriage may be most important when there is that stress in life and when things are going wrong,” Mr. Grover said.
They analyzed data about well-being from two national surveys in the United Kingdom and the Gallup World Poll. In all but a few parts of the world, even when controlling for people’s life satisfaction before marriage, being married made them happier. This conclusion, however, did not hold true in Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Intriguingly, marital happiness long outlasted the honeymoon period. Though some social scientists have argued that happiness levels are innate, so people return to their natural level of well-being after joyful or upsetting events, the researchers found that the benefits of marriage persist.
One reason for that might be the role of friendship within marriage. Those who consider their spouse or partner to be their best friend get about twice as much life satisfaction from marriage as others, the study found.
The effect of friendship seems to be the result of living with a romantic partner, rather than the legal status of being married, because it was as strong for people who lived together but weren’t married. Women benefit more from being married to their best friend than men do, though women are less likely to regard their spouse as their best friend.
“What immediately intrigued me about the results was to rethink marriage as a whole,” Mr. Helliwell said. “Maybe what is really important is friendship, and to never forget that in the push and pull of daily life.”
Marriage has undergone a drastic shift in the last half century. In the past, as the Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker described, marriage was utilitarian: Women looked for a husband to make money and men looked for a woman to manage the household.
But in recent decades, the roles of men and women have become more similar. As a result, spouses have taken on roles as companions and confidants, particularly those who are financially stable, as the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have discussed.
The benefits of marital friendship are most vivid during middle age, when people tend to experience a dip in life satisfaction, largely because career and family demands apply the most stress then. Those who are married, the new paper found, have much shallower dips – even in regions where marriage does not have an overall positive effect.
“The biggest benefits come in high-stress environments, and people who are married can handle midlife stress better than those who aren’t because they have a shared load and shared friendship,” Mr. Helliwell said.
Overall, the research comes to a largely optimistic conclusion. People have the capacity to increase their happiness levels and avoid falling deep into midlife crisis by finding support in long-term relationships. Yet those relationships seem to be less achievable for the least advantaged members of society."
WBF International
29th of November 2015.
The Institute for Family Policies (IPF) is an independent international civil organisation, founded in 2001, whose mission is the promotion and defence the family institution. IPF is a legal entity, which headquarters are in Madrid, Spain, but has structure and representation in several countries in Europe and Latin-American. IPF is a supranational organization that partners with family organizations around the globe. IPF has special consultative status with ECOSOC of the United Nations.
Here is a letter reporting their latest publication
"The Institute for Family Policies (IPF) has published "130 support measures for the Family"
The main conclusion of this report is that the family has been largely abandoned by the authorities. Spain has over 35 years of family vulnerability. As a result of this abandonment by the Public Administrations, Spain is now an aging society, without children, with solitary homes, and has fewer marriages and more broken families and unsatisfied.
It is for this reason that the Institute for Family Policies (IPF), coinciding with general elections scheduled for next December 20, has addressed the completion of a report, entitled “130 Support Measures for the Family”, to provide a coordinated set of measures we consider essential for the development of a truly comprehensive policy of family support for the various political parties to incorporate in their electoral programs.
It does not cover all that can and should be developed. There are many more, but we're considering the ones to be envisaged with more urgency. Also, being a set of 130 measures, a very high number, it is shown that the deficit in support and promotion to family in Spain is still high.
In this context, this set of measures is divided into 10 areas of action with more than 10 measures each. These areas are:
· family as an institution;
· the commitment to family and convergence with Europe;
· towards a family culture;
· more than decent housing, a home;
· the right to freedom to have children;
· the right to reconcile work and family life;
· the right to marital stability;
· the right of parents to educate their children;
· towards a perspective of family taxation;
· the active participation of families and associations.
It is a set of measures that deals with promoting family from a family perspective. A comprehensive family policy that includes concrete universal measures, targeting to support and promote the family institution and its various components. Measures to be measurable and oriented to meet the needs and family problems such as adequate housing, being able to have the desired number of children, care and child support, education, marital stability and reconciliation of work and family life.
It is important to note that although this report is specific to Spain believe that most of the proposed measures can be extrapolated to other countries.
Kind Regards..
WBF International.
5th of October 2015.
The UN LGBT pledge.
Please find below a copy of the pledge made by the UN to tackle discrimination against homosexuals. While we do not endorse the abuse of any individual, unfortunately so far the anti-discriminative approach of the States has consistently failed to apply proportionately, so that the "rights" of the ones are held above the rights of everyone with views on sexuality which differ from theirs. This article is also posted in our "weekly news" column.
ENDING VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX PEOPLE.
United Nations entities call on States to act urgently to end violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)1 adults, adolescents and children.
All people have an equal right to live free from violence, persecution, discrimination and stigma. International human rights law establishes legal obligations on States to ensure that every person, without distinction, can enjoy these rights. While welcoming increasing efforts in many countries to protect the rights of LGBTI people, we remain seriously concerned that around the world, millions of LGBTI individuals, those perceived as LGBTI and their families face widespread human rights violations. This is cause for alarm – and action.
Failure to uphold the human rights of LGBTI people and protect them against abuses such as violence and discriminatory laws and practices, constitute serious violations of international human rights law and have a far-reaching impact on society – contributing to increased vulnerability to ill health including HIV infection, social and economic exclusion, putting strain on families and communities, and impacting negatively on economic growth, decent work and progress towards achievement of the future Sustainable Development Goals. States bear the primary duty under international law to protect everyone from discrimination and violence. These violations therefore require an urgent response by governments, parliaments, judiciaries and national human rights institutions. Community, religious and political leaders, workers’ organizations, the private sector, health providers, civil society organizations and the media also have important roles to play. Human rights are universal – cultural, religious and moral practices and beliefs and social attitudes cannot be invoked to justify human rights violations against any group, including LGBTI persons.
PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENCE States should protect LGBTI persons from violence, torture and ill-treatment, including by: • Investigating, prosecuting and providing remedy for acts of violence, torture and ill-treatment against LGBTI adults, adolescents and children, and those who defend their human rights; • Strengthening efforts to prevent, monitor and report such violence; • Incorporating homophobia and transphobia as aggravating factors in laws against hate crime and hate speech; • Recognizing that persecution of people because they are (or are perceived to be) LGBTI may constitute a valid ground for asylum, and not returning such refugees to a place where their life or freedom might be threatened.
The United Nations and others have documented widespread physical and psychological violence against LGBTI persons in all regions - including murder, assault, kidnapping, rape, sexual violence, as well as torture and ill-treatment in institutional and other setting. LGBTI youth and lesbian, bisexual and transgender women are at particular risk of physical, psychological and sexual violence in family and community settings. LGBTI persons often face violence and discrimination when seeking refuge from persecution and in humanitarian emergencies. They may also face abuse in medical settings, including unethical and harmful so-called “therapies” to change sexual orientation, forced or coercive sterilization, forced genital and anal examinations, and unnecessary surgery and treatment on intersex children without their consent. In many countries, the response to these violations is inadequate, they are underreported and often not properly investigated and prosecuted, leading to widespread impunity and lack of justice, remedies and support for victims. Human rights defenders combatting these violations are frequently persecuted and face discriminatory restrictions on their activities.
ENDING VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX PEOPLE
1 While this statement refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, it should also be read to refer to other people who face violence and discrimination on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, including those who may identify with other terms.
REPEALING DISCRIMINATORY LAWS States should respect international human rights standards, including by reviewing, repealing and establishing a moratorium on the application of: • Laws that criminalize same-sex conduct between consenting adults; • Laws that criminalize transgender people on the basis of their gender expression; • Other laws used to arrest, punish or discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
In 76 countries, laws still criminalize consensual same-sex relationships between adults, exposing individuals to the risk of arbitrary arrest, prosecution, imprisonment – even the death penalty, in at least five countries. Laws criminalizing cross-dressing are used to arrest and punish transgender people. Other laws are used to harass, detain, discriminate or place restrictions on the freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. These discriminatory laws contribute to perpetuating stigma and discrimination, as well as hate crime, police abuse, torture and ill-treatment, family and community violence, and negatively affect public health by impeding access to health and HIV services.
PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION States should uphold international human rights standards on non-discrimination, including by: • Prohibiting discrimination against LGBTI adults, adolescents and children in all contexts – including in education, employment, healthcare, housing, social protection, criminal justice and in asylum and detention settings; • Ensuring legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people without abusive requirements; • Combating prejudice against LGBTI people through dialogue, public education and training; • Ensuring that LGBTI people are consulted and participate in the design, implementation and monitoring of laws, policies and programmes that affect them, including development and humanitarian initiatives.
LGBTI people face widespread discrimination and exclusion in all contexts - including multiple forms of discrimination based on other factors such as sex, race, ethnicity, age, religion, poverty, migration, disability and health status. Children face bullying, discrimination or expulsion from schools on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, or that of their parents. LGBTI youth rejected by their families experience disproportionate levels of suicide, homelessness and food insecurity. Discrimination and violence contribute to the marginalization of LGBTI people and their vulnerability to ill health including HIV infection, yet they face denial of care, discriminatory attitudes and pathologization in medical and other settings. Transgender people are frequently denied legal recognition of their preferred gender or face abusive requirements such as forced sterilization, treatment or divorce to obtain it, without which they suffer exclusion and marginalization. The exclusion of LGBTI people from the design, implementation and monitoring of laws and policies that affect them perpetuates their social and economic marginalization.
UNITED NATIONS SUPPORT Our organizations stand ready to support and assist Member States and other stakeholders as they work to address the challenges outlined in this statement including through constitutional, legislative and policy changes, strengthening of national institutions, and education, training and other initiatives to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the human rights of all LGBTI people.
September 2015
WBF International.
13th of September 2015.
The American Constitution and Marriage: WHY IS SSM SIMPLY NOT OK?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The ruling is as clear an example of judicial activism as we’ve had in a generation. Nothing in the Constitution justified the redefinition of marriage by judges. The Court simply imposed its judgment about a policy matter that the Constitution left to the American people and their elected representatives. In doing so, it got marriage and the Constitution wrong, just as it got abortion and the Constitution wrong in Roe v. Wade.
The question before the Supreme Court in Obergefell was not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best or whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is better, but only whether anything in the Constitution specifically took away the power of the people to choose their marriage policy. Yet the Court spoke almost exclusively about its “new insights” into marriage, and was virtually silent on the Constitution. That’s because it had no choice. Our Constitution is itself silent on what marriage is; we the People retain the authority to make marriage policy.
The Court claimed to show that the marriage policy that has existed in the United States for all its history is now prohibited by the Constitution. It failed to do that. As I explain in my forthcoming book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, what the Court actually did was to assume that marriage is an essentially genderless institution and then announce that the Constitution requires states to adopt that same vision of marriage in their laws.
This is all the more remarkable, given that during oral arguments on Obergefell Justice Kennedy pointed out that marriage as the union of man and woman “has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better.” Kennedy at least pretended to be reluctant to redefine marriage judicially. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships has, Kennedy pointed out, only been around for ten years. And, he added, “10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.”
Even Justice Stephen Breyer noted that marriage understood as the union of man and woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change . . . what marriage is.” He asked: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” And yet, he joined Kennedy’s majority opinion overruling the people—overruling the truth—and redefining marriage everywhere.
The first paragraph of the majority opinion highlights the incoherence of the ruling’s logic:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.
But as Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissenting opinion, constitutional protections of liberty can hardly require governmental recognition. The liberty that the Constitution protects is a freedom from government interference. And gays and lesbians already enjoyed full liberty “to define and express their identity” and to exercise their “liberty by marrying someone of the same sex” in the house of worship of their choice. Yet Justice Kennedy writes the majority opinion as if governmental recognition of a relationship is a liberty right.
How did Kennedy support such a conclusion?
Kennedy starts with a paean to “the transcendent importance of marriage.” He notes that the “lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons” and that the “centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations.” He cites a variety of theological, philosophical, literary, and artistic portrayals of marriage and even admits that it “is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” Indeed, he points out that for the states defending their marriage laws, marriage “is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.”
So why, exactly, does the US Constitution require a redefinition of marriage? Kennedy starts by claiming that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”—requires states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. How? Because the fundamental liberties that the due process clause protects extend to “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” And these choices, Kennedy argues, now require not merely freedom from government coercion, but proactive government recognition. And the Court, apparently, is the one to decide which intimate choices require recognition, and when, and how much recognition each choice is due.
Kennedy is candid about how radical a departure from previous Court cases his ruling is: “It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” But that presumption was wrong, according to Kennedy, and he identifies four principles to “demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.”
Kennedy’s Four Marriage Principles
First, “the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” This entails that “two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.” We might pause here to inquire whether it is also true for all persons, whatever their number. Why Kennedy writes that “two” but not three or four “persons together can find other freedoms” is anyone’s guess. He never says. We might also wonder how “autonomy” gives rise to a right to government recognition.
Second, “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” (Note again the arbitrary addition of “two-person.”) There it is: “unlike any other” relationship. Your number-one person. Yes, Kennedy follows nearly verbatim the intense-emotional-union view of marriage that Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and I criticize in our book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Nevertheless, Kennedy writes: “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.” Consenting adult romance and care. Kennedy repeats this claim in the closing paragraph of his decision: “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”
This is among the most harmful assumptions of Kennedy’s opinion—that marriage is the only relationship that ultimately matters, that others are somehow lesser, and that the unmarried are therefore “condemned to live in loneliness.”
Third, marriage “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.” So in Kennedy’s view, same-sex couples have “rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” and these bring a right to marriage in their wake since, as a prior decision held, “the right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.”
Here Kennedy discusses children reared by same-sex couples without once acknowledging that they might want a mom and a dad. And there is no mention—at all—of children’s right to a mom and a dad, and preferably their biological mom and dad. There’s only discussion of adults’ rights to children. This section of the opinion raises troubling questions about how two people of the same sex have a right to children.
Fourth “and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.” Well, yes, marriage—a union of man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother—is a keystone of our social order, precisely because of its procreative character, which same-sex couples lack. So this is actually a point against Kennedy’s view. In response, he just asserts—without argument—that “there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.” As he writes, “same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.” Unless, of course, those purposes and that meaning have something to do with uniting comprehensively, creating new life, and uniting new human beings with their mother and father. Remarkably, Kennedy never once seriously engages with that argument.
Equal Protection and History
Kennedy concludes his opinion for the Court by adding, almost as an afterthought, that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—not just its due process clause—also gives same-sex couples a right to have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. The reasoning here is even cloudier. Kennedy writes that “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way” and that in “any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” The conclusion? “This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become. The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry reflect this dynamic.” That’s right, this “dynamic” tells us what freedom “must become.” If ever there was a clearer indication that the Court was legislating from the bench, I haven’t seen it. And if this passage contained an actual legal argument, I haven’t found it.
Along the way, to buttress his opinion, Kennedy cites various ways in which the social practice and legal regulation of marriage historically has changed. He mentions coverture, where “a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity.” He mentions bans on interracial marriage. He mentions legal regulations that placed hurdles on marriage for potential spouses if they owed child support or were in prison. Never, however, does he acknowledge that none of these practices or regulations redefined what marriage is—a comprehensive union of sexually complementary spouses.
Roberts faults Kennedy precisely for his sloppy use of this history:
In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” . . . Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.”
The problem with the analogy to interracial marriage is that it assumes exactly what is in dispute: that sex is as irrelevant to marriage as race is. It’s clear that race has nothing to do with marriage. Racist laws kept the races apart and were designed to keep whites at the top. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and their children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
In sum, Chief Justice John Roberts simply observes that “the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position.” Think of a student who can’t find good support for a claim in a term paper and so adds dozens of tangential references—as if many weak arguments somehow combine to yield one strong one. “In any event,” Roberts writes, “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because”—and here he quotes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—“distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ ‘legitimate state interest’ in ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage.’”
The Role of the Court and Protecting Freedom Now
Justice Kennedy’s most basic error was a complete failure to interpret and apply the Constitution to the case at hand. He simply philosophized about what marriage should be and what freedom “must become.” Chief Justice Roberts opened his dissenting opinion by noting that the Supreme Court “is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” As Roberts notes later in his opinion, “There is, after all, no ‘Companionship and Understanding’ or ‘Nobility and Dignity’ Clause in the Constitution.”
America is in a time of transition. The Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will the rights of Americans to speak and act in accord with what the United States had always believed about marriage—that it’s a union of husband and a wife—be tolerated?
Most Americans say yes, they want to be a tolerant, pluralistic nation. They want peaceful coexistence. I agree with them. It’s only ideologues and activists who want to sow the seeds of disharmony by threatening those with whom they disagree with revoking their tax-exempt status, taking away their government licenses, suing them out of business, or stripping them of their legal protections.
This is why the First Amendment Defense Act is so vitally important. If passed and signed into law, this act would prohibit the federal government from ever discriminating against any citizen, charity, school, or business because they believe and act on the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Just as the pro-life movement ensured that no pro-life citizen would ever have to pay for an abortion or perform an abortion, so too must we work to ensure no one is coerced on marriage. Rather than forcing people and institutions of faith to go to court for their religious liberty, this bill would prevent the government from ever acting unjustly in the first place.
We need good policy at all levels of government. Governors have an opportunity right now to issue executive orders preventing state agencies from discriminating against or otherwise penalizing citizens and organizations that continue to believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. State legislatures can pass laws doing the same.
The First Amendment Defense Act and its state analogues would achieve civil peace even amid disagreement by protecting pluralism and the rights of all Americans, whatever faith they may practice. Protecting conscience is good policy, and liberals committed to tolerance should embrace it.
Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and editor of Public Discourse. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.
Original article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/03/marriage_
and_the_constitution_what_the_court_said_and_why_it_got_it_wrong_127220.html
WBF International.
13th of September 2015:
Here is the definition of marriage according to the Oxford dictionary of law, Market House Books ltd, fourth edition, 1997:
MARRIAGE: 1.The relationship between husband and wife. 2. A ceremony, civil or religious, that creates the legal status of husband and wife and the legal obligations arising form that status (SEE MARRIAGE CEREMONY). All marriages must be registered by an authorised marriage registrar. The minimum age for marriage is 16 with parental consent (18 without) and capacity to marry in general is governed by the law of * domicile of both parties before the marriage. Relationships within which marriage is prohibited are specified in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 (SEE PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIPS). Parties to a marriage must be respectively male and female as determined at birth (sex-change operations have no legal effect), must not be already married to someone else (see BIGAMY; POLYGAMY), and must enter into the marriage freely. See also MARRIAGE BY CERTIFICATE.
I don’t think I need to elaborate about how far we have derived from this pattern. The EU and the USA are now on a road to radically change the very definition of marriage, by that completely trespassing their rights.
Here is a link to the debate of a SS couple advocating for this redefinition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQUz_DaJFI
WBF International.
13th of September 2015.
Please find here an important link to the “Coalition for marriage” website with all the needed information regarding the English Government’s harbouring final assault on real marriage:
http://c4m.org.uk/resources/
pdf links:
THE EQUALITY ACT: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/how-make-sure-everyone-treated-fairly-work-guide-equality-act-2010-easy-read
THE EDO’s briefing: http://c4m.org.uk/resources/
30th of December 2015
We want to share a very interesting article reported in the New York Times early this year, about the benefits of marriage. The articles reveal that the benefits of marriage, although in decline in modern society, still outweigh those of singleness. Here are the reasons why:
Original article (8th of January 2015): by Claire Caine Miller: "Study finds More reasons to Get and stay married":
~"A new economics paper has some old-fashioned advice for people navigating the stresses of life: Find a spouse who is also your best friend.
Social scientists have long known that married people tend to be happier, but they debate whether that is because marriage causes happiness or simply because happier people are more likely to get married. The new paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, controlled for pre-marriage happiness levels.
It concluded that being married makes people happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who remain single – particularly during the most stressful periods, like midlife crises.
Even as fewer people are marrying, the disadvantages of remaining single have broad implications. It’s important because marriage is increasingly a force behind inequality. Stable marriages are more common among educated, high-income people, and increasingly out of reach for those who are not. That divide appears to affect not just people’s income and family stability, but also their happiness and stress levels
A quarter of today’s young adults will have never married by 2030, which would be the highest share in modern history, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet both remaining unmarried and divorcing are more common among less-educated, lower-income people. Educated, high-income people still marry at high rates and are less likely to divorce.
Those whose lives are most difficult could benefit most from marriage, according to the economists who wrote the new paper, John Helliwell of the Vancouver School of Economics and Shawn Grover of the Canadian Department of Finance. “Marriage may be most important when there is that stress in life and when things are going wrong,” Mr. Grover said.
They analyzed data about well-being from two national surveys in the United Kingdom and the Gallup World Poll. In all but a few parts of the world, even when controlling for people’s life satisfaction before marriage, being married made them happier. This conclusion, however, did not hold true in Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Intriguingly, marital happiness long outlasted the honeymoon period. Though some social scientists have argued that happiness levels are innate, so people return to their natural level of well-being after joyful or upsetting events, the researchers found that the benefits of marriage persist.
One reason for that might be the role of friendship within marriage. Those who consider their spouse or partner to be their best friend get about twice as much life satisfaction from marriage as others, the study found.
The effect of friendship seems to be the result of living with a romantic partner, rather than the legal status of being married, because it was as strong for people who lived together but weren’t married. Women benefit more from being married to their best friend than men do, though women are less likely to regard their spouse as their best friend.
“What immediately intrigued me about the results was to rethink marriage as a whole,” Mr. Helliwell said. “Maybe what is really important is friendship, and to never forget that in the push and pull of daily life.”
Marriage has undergone a drastic shift in the last half century. In the past, as the Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker described, marriage was utilitarian: Women looked for a husband to make money and men looked for a woman to manage the household.
But in recent decades, the roles of men and women have become more similar. As a result, spouses have taken on roles as companions and confidants, particularly those who are financially stable, as the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have discussed.
The benefits of marital friendship are most vivid during middle age, when people tend to experience a dip in life satisfaction, largely because career and family demands apply the most stress then. Those who are married, the new paper found, have much shallower dips – even in regions where marriage does not have an overall positive effect.
“The biggest benefits come in high-stress environments, and people who are married can handle midlife stress better than those who aren’t because they have a shared load and shared friendship,” Mr. Helliwell said.
Overall, the research comes to a largely optimistic conclusion. People have the capacity to increase their happiness levels and avoid falling deep into midlife crisis by finding support in long-term relationships. Yet those relationships seem to be less achievable for the least advantaged members of society."
WBF International
29th of November 2015.
The Institute for Family Policies (IPF) is an independent international civil organisation, founded in 2001, whose mission is the promotion and defence the family institution. IPF is a legal entity, which headquarters are in Madrid, Spain, but has structure and representation in several countries in Europe and Latin-American. IPF is a supranational organization that partners with family organizations around the globe. IPF has special consultative status with ECOSOC of the United Nations.
Here is a letter reporting their latest publication
"The Institute for Family Policies (IPF) has published "130 support measures for the Family"
The main conclusion of this report is that the family has been largely abandoned by the authorities. Spain has over 35 years of family vulnerability. As a result of this abandonment by the Public Administrations, Spain is now an aging society, without children, with solitary homes, and has fewer marriages and more broken families and unsatisfied.
It is for this reason that the Institute for Family Policies (IPF), coinciding with general elections scheduled for next December 20, has addressed the completion of a report, entitled “130 Support Measures for the Family”, to provide a coordinated set of measures we consider essential for the development of a truly comprehensive policy of family support for the various political parties to incorporate in their electoral programs.
It does not cover all that can and should be developed. There are many more, but we're considering the ones to be envisaged with more urgency. Also, being a set of 130 measures, a very high number, it is shown that the deficit in support and promotion to family in Spain is still high.
In this context, this set of measures is divided into 10 areas of action with more than 10 measures each. These areas are:
· family as an institution;
· the commitment to family and convergence with Europe;
· towards a family culture;
· more than decent housing, a home;
· the right to freedom to have children;
· the right to reconcile work and family life;
· the right to marital stability;
· the right of parents to educate their children;
· towards a perspective of family taxation;
· the active participation of families and associations.
It is a set of measures that deals with promoting family from a family perspective. A comprehensive family policy that includes concrete universal measures, targeting to support and promote the family institution and its various components. Measures to be measurable and oriented to meet the needs and family problems such as adequate housing, being able to have the desired number of children, care and child support, education, marital stability and reconciliation of work and family life.
It is important to note that although this report is specific to Spain believe that most of the proposed measures can be extrapolated to other countries.
Kind Regards..
WBF International.
5th of October 2015.
The UN LGBT pledge.
Please find below a copy of the pledge made by the UN to tackle discrimination against homosexuals. While we do not endorse the abuse of any individual, unfortunately so far the anti-discriminative approach of the States has consistently failed to apply proportionately, so that the "rights" of the ones are held above the rights of everyone with views on sexuality which differ from theirs. This article is also posted in our "weekly news" column.
ENDING VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX PEOPLE.
United Nations entities call on States to act urgently to end violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)1 adults, adolescents and children.
All people have an equal right to live free from violence, persecution, discrimination and stigma. International human rights law establishes legal obligations on States to ensure that every person, without distinction, can enjoy these rights. While welcoming increasing efforts in many countries to protect the rights of LGBTI people, we remain seriously concerned that around the world, millions of LGBTI individuals, those perceived as LGBTI and their families face widespread human rights violations. This is cause for alarm – and action.
Failure to uphold the human rights of LGBTI people and protect them against abuses such as violence and discriminatory laws and practices, constitute serious violations of international human rights law and have a far-reaching impact on society – contributing to increased vulnerability to ill health including HIV infection, social and economic exclusion, putting strain on families and communities, and impacting negatively on economic growth, decent work and progress towards achievement of the future Sustainable Development Goals. States bear the primary duty under international law to protect everyone from discrimination and violence. These violations therefore require an urgent response by governments, parliaments, judiciaries and national human rights institutions. Community, religious and political leaders, workers’ organizations, the private sector, health providers, civil society organizations and the media also have important roles to play. Human rights are universal – cultural, religious and moral practices and beliefs and social attitudes cannot be invoked to justify human rights violations against any group, including LGBTI persons.
PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENCE States should protect LGBTI persons from violence, torture and ill-treatment, including by: • Investigating, prosecuting and providing remedy for acts of violence, torture and ill-treatment against LGBTI adults, adolescents and children, and those who defend their human rights; • Strengthening efforts to prevent, monitor and report such violence; • Incorporating homophobia and transphobia as aggravating factors in laws against hate crime and hate speech; • Recognizing that persecution of people because they are (or are perceived to be) LGBTI may constitute a valid ground for asylum, and not returning such refugees to a place where their life or freedom might be threatened.
The United Nations and others have documented widespread physical and psychological violence against LGBTI persons in all regions - including murder, assault, kidnapping, rape, sexual violence, as well as torture and ill-treatment in institutional and other setting. LGBTI youth and lesbian, bisexual and transgender women are at particular risk of physical, psychological and sexual violence in family and community settings. LGBTI persons often face violence and discrimination when seeking refuge from persecution and in humanitarian emergencies. They may also face abuse in medical settings, including unethical and harmful so-called “therapies” to change sexual orientation, forced or coercive sterilization, forced genital and anal examinations, and unnecessary surgery and treatment on intersex children without their consent. In many countries, the response to these violations is inadequate, they are underreported and often not properly investigated and prosecuted, leading to widespread impunity and lack of justice, remedies and support for victims. Human rights defenders combatting these violations are frequently persecuted and face discriminatory restrictions on their activities.
ENDING VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX PEOPLE
1 While this statement refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, it should also be read to refer to other people who face violence and discrimination on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, including those who may identify with other terms.
REPEALING DISCRIMINATORY LAWS States should respect international human rights standards, including by reviewing, repealing and establishing a moratorium on the application of: • Laws that criminalize same-sex conduct between consenting adults; • Laws that criminalize transgender people on the basis of their gender expression; • Other laws used to arrest, punish or discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
In 76 countries, laws still criminalize consensual same-sex relationships between adults, exposing individuals to the risk of arbitrary arrest, prosecution, imprisonment – even the death penalty, in at least five countries. Laws criminalizing cross-dressing are used to arrest and punish transgender people. Other laws are used to harass, detain, discriminate or place restrictions on the freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. These discriminatory laws contribute to perpetuating stigma and discrimination, as well as hate crime, police abuse, torture and ill-treatment, family and community violence, and negatively affect public health by impeding access to health and HIV services.
PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION States should uphold international human rights standards on non-discrimination, including by: • Prohibiting discrimination against LGBTI adults, adolescents and children in all contexts – including in education, employment, healthcare, housing, social protection, criminal justice and in asylum and detention settings; • Ensuring legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people without abusive requirements; • Combating prejudice against LGBTI people through dialogue, public education and training; • Ensuring that LGBTI people are consulted and participate in the design, implementation and monitoring of laws, policies and programmes that affect them, including development and humanitarian initiatives.
LGBTI people face widespread discrimination and exclusion in all contexts - including multiple forms of discrimination based on other factors such as sex, race, ethnicity, age, religion, poverty, migration, disability and health status. Children face bullying, discrimination or expulsion from schools on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, or that of their parents. LGBTI youth rejected by their families experience disproportionate levels of suicide, homelessness and food insecurity. Discrimination and violence contribute to the marginalization of LGBTI people and their vulnerability to ill health including HIV infection, yet they face denial of care, discriminatory attitudes and pathologization in medical and other settings. Transgender people are frequently denied legal recognition of their preferred gender or face abusive requirements such as forced sterilization, treatment or divorce to obtain it, without which they suffer exclusion and marginalization. The exclusion of LGBTI people from the design, implementation and monitoring of laws and policies that affect them perpetuates their social and economic marginalization.
UNITED NATIONS SUPPORT Our organizations stand ready to support and assist Member States and other stakeholders as they work to address the challenges outlined in this statement including through constitutional, legislative and policy changes, strengthening of national institutions, and education, training and other initiatives to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the human rights of all LGBTI people.
September 2015
WBF International.
13th of September 2015.
The American Constitution and Marriage: WHY IS SSM SIMPLY NOT OK?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The ruling is as clear an example of judicial activism as we’ve had in a generation. Nothing in the Constitution justified the redefinition of marriage by judges. The Court simply imposed its judgment about a policy matter that the Constitution left to the American people and their elected representatives. In doing so, it got marriage and the Constitution wrong, just as it got abortion and the Constitution wrong in Roe v. Wade.
The question before the Supreme Court in Obergefell was not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best or whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is better, but only whether anything in the Constitution specifically took away the power of the people to choose their marriage policy. Yet the Court spoke almost exclusively about its “new insights” into marriage, and was virtually silent on the Constitution. That’s because it had no choice. Our Constitution is itself silent on what marriage is; we the People retain the authority to make marriage policy.
The Court claimed to show that the marriage policy that has existed in the United States for all its history is now prohibited by the Constitution. It failed to do that. As I explain in my forthcoming book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, what the Court actually did was to assume that marriage is an essentially genderless institution and then announce that the Constitution requires states to adopt that same vision of marriage in their laws.
This is all the more remarkable, given that during oral arguments on Obergefell Justice Kennedy pointed out that marriage as the union of man and woman “has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better.” Kennedy at least pretended to be reluctant to redefine marriage judicially. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships has, Kennedy pointed out, only been around for ten years. And, he added, “10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.”
Even Justice Stephen Breyer noted that marriage understood as the union of man and woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change . . . what marriage is.” He asked: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” And yet, he joined Kennedy’s majority opinion overruling the people—overruling the truth—and redefining marriage everywhere.
The first paragraph of the majority opinion highlights the incoherence of the ruling’s logic:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.
But as Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissenting opinion, constitutional protections of liberty can hardly require governmental recognition. The liberty that the Constitution protects is a freedom from government interference. And gays and lesbians already enjoyed full liberty “to define and express their identity” and to exercise their “liberty by marrying someone of the same sex” in the house of worship of their choice. Yet Justice Kennedy writes the majority opinion as if governmental recognition of a relationship is a liberty right.
How did Kennedy support such a conclusion?
Kennedy starts with a paean to “the transcendent importance of marriage.” He notes that the “lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons” and that the “centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations.” He cites a variety of theological, philosophical, literary, and artistic portrayals of marriage and even admits that it “is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” Indeed, he points out that for the states defending their marriage laws, marriage “is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.”
So why, exactly, does the US Constitution require a redefinition of marriage? Kennedy starts by claiming that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”—requires states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. How? Because the fundamental liberties that the due process clause protects extend to “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” And these choices, Kennedy argues, now require not merely freedom from government coercion, but proactive government recognition. And the Court, apparently, is the one to decide which intimate choices require recognition, and when, and how much recognition each choice is due.
Kennedy is candid about how radical a departure from previous Court cases his ruling is: “It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” But that presumption was wrong, according to Kennedy, and he identifies four principles to “demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.”
Kennedy’s Four Marriage Principles
First, “the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” This entails that “two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.” We might pause here to inquire whether it is also true for all persons, whatever their number. Why Kennedy writes that “two” but not three or four “persons together can find other freedoms” is anyone’s guess. He never says. We might also wonder how “autonomy” gives rise to a right to government recognition.
Second, “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” (Note again the arbitrary addition of “two-person.”) There it is: “unlike any other” relationship. Your number-one person. Yes, Kennedy follows nearly verbatim the intense-emotional-union view of marriage that Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and I criticize in our book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Nevertheless, Kennedy writes: “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.” Consenting adult romance and care. Kennedy repeats this claim in the closing paragraph of his decision: “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”
This is among the most harmful assumptions of Kennedy’s opinion—that marriage is the only relationship that ultimately matters, that others are somehow lesser, and that the unmarried are therefore “condemned to live in loneliness.”
Third, marriage “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.” So in Kennedy’s view, same-sex couples have “rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” and these bring a right to marriage in their wake since, as a prior decision held, “the right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.”
Here Kennedy discusses children reared by same-sex couples without once acknowledging that they might want a mom and a dad. And there is no mention—at all—of children’s right to a mom and a dad, and preferably their biological mom and dad. There’s only discussion of adults’ rights to children. This section of the opinion raises troubling questions about how two people of the same sex have a right to children.
Fourth “and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.” Well, yes, marriage—a union of man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother—is a keystone of our social order, precisely because of its procreative character, which same-sex couples lack. So this is actually a point against Kennedy’s view. In response, he just asserts—without argument—that “there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.” As he writes, “same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.” Unless, of course, those purposes and that meaning have something to do with uniting comprehensively, creating new life, and uniting new human beings with their mother and father. Remarkably, Kennedy never once seriously engages with that argument.
Equal Protection and History
Kennedy concludes his opinion for the Court by adding, almost as an afterthought, that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—not just its due process clause—also gives same-sex couples a right to have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. The reasoning here is even cloudier. Kennedy writes that “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way” and that in “any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” The conclusion? “This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become. The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry reflect this dynamic.” That’s right, this “dynamic” tells us what freedom “must become.” If ever there was a clearer indication that the Court was legislating from the bench, I haven’t seen it. And if this passage contained an actual legal argument, I haven’t found it.
Along the way, to buttress his opinion, Kennedy cites various ways in which the social practice and legal regulation of marriage historically has changed. He mentions coverture, where “a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity.” He mentions bans on interracial marriage. He mentions legal regulations that placed hurdles on marriage for potential spouses if they owed child support or were in prison. Never, however, does he acknowledge that none of these practices or regulations redefined what marriage is—a comprehensive union of sexually complementary spouses.
Roberts faults Kennedy precisely for his sloppy use of this history:
In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” . . . Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.”
The problem with the analogy to interracial marriage is that it assumes exactly what is in dispute: that sex is as irrelevant to marriage as race is. It’s clear that race has nothing to do with marriage. Racist laws kept the races apart and were designed to keep whites at the top. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and their children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
In sum, Chief Justice John Roberts simply observes that “the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position.” Think of a student who can’t find good support for a claim in a term paper and so adds dozens of tangential references—as if many weak arguments somehow combine to yield one strong one. “In any event,” Roberts writes, “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because”—and here he quotes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—“distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ ‘legitimate state interest’ in ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage.’”
The Role of the Court and Protecting Freedom Now
Justice Kennedy’s most basic error was a complete failure to interpret and apply the Constitution to the case at hand. He simply philosophized about what marriage should be and what freedom “must become.” Chief Justice Roberts opened his dissenting opinion by noting that the Supreme Court “is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” As Roberts notes later in his opinion, “There is, after all, no ‘Companionship and Understanding’ or ‘Nobility and Dignity’ Clause in the Constitution.”
America is in a time of transition. The Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will the rights of Americans to speak and act in accord with what the United States had always believed about marriage—that it’s a union of husband and a wife—be tolerated?
Most Americans say yes, they want to be a tolerant, pluralistic nation. They want peaceful coexistence. I agree with them. It’s only ideologues and activists who want to sow the seeds of disharmony by threatening those with whom they disagree with revoking their tax-exempt status, taking away their government licenses, suing them out of business, or stripping them of their legal protections.
This is why the First Amendment Defense Act is so vitally important. If passed and signed into law, this act would prohibit the federal government from ever discriminating against any citizen, charity, school, or business because they believe and act on the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Just as the pro-life movement ensured that no pro-life citizen would ever have to pay for an abortion or perform an abortion, so too must we work to ensure no one is coerced on marriage. Rather than forcing people and institutions of faith to go to court for their religious liberty, this bill would prevent the government from ever acting unjustly in the first place.
We need good policy at all levels of government. Governors have an opportunity right now to issue executive orders preventing state agencies from discriminating against or otherwise penalizing citizens and organizations that continue to believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. State legislatures can pass laws doing the same.
The First Amendment Defense Act and its state analogues would achieve civil peace even amid disagreement by protecting pluralism and the rights of all Americans, whatever faith they may practice. Protecting conscience is good policy, and liberals committed to tolerance should embrace it.
Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and editor of Public Discourse. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.
Original article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/03/marriage_
and_the_constitution_what_the_court_said_and_why_it_got_it_wrong_127220.html
WBF International.
13th of September 2015:
Here is the definition of marriage according to the Oxford dictionary of law, Market House Books ltd, fourth edition, 1997:
MARRIAGE: 1.The relationship between husband and wife. 2. A ceremony, civil or religious, that creates the legal status of husband and wife and the legal obligations arising form that status (SEE MARRIAGE CEREMONY). All marriages must be registered by an authorised marriage registrar. The minimum age for marriage is 16 with parental consent (18 without) and capacity to marry in general is governed by the law of * domicile of both parties before the marriage. Relationships within which marriage is prohibited are specified in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 (SEE PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIPS). Parties to a marriage must be respectively male and female as determined at birth (sex-change operations have no legal effect), must not be already married to someone else (see BIGAMY; POLYGAMY), and must enter into the marriage freely. See also MARRIAGE BY CERTIFICATE.
I don’t think I need to elaborate about how far we have derived from this pattern. The EU and the USA are now on a road to radically change the very definition of marriage, by that completely trespassing their rights.
Here is a link to the debate of a SS couple advocating for this redefinition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQUz_DaJFI
WBF International.
13th of September 2015.
Please find here an important link to the “Coalition for marriage” website with all the needed information regarding the English Government’s harbouring final assault on real marriage:
http://c4m.org.uk/resources/
pdf links:
THE EQUALITY ACT: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/how-make-sure-everyone-treated-fairly-work-guide-equality-act-2010-easy-read
THE EDO’s briefing: http://c4m.org.uk/resources/