Governor Mitt Romney’s letter to U.S. senators regarding the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment is a thorough and clear explanation of why it is so important to protect traditional marriage. Even though the senate voted 49 for the amendment and 48 against it, it was not the two-thirds majority needed to proceed. It’s certain to be debated in the senate again next year. In the meantime many states are voting to include it in their state constitutions, so we think it would be helpful for readers to thoroughly understand its importance.
June 04, 2006
An NRO Primary Document
Editor’s Note: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has sent the following letter to United States senators on Friday in anticipation of this week’s vote in the Senate on a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Dear Senator,
Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote “yes.”
Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.
Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.
In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an “evolving paradigm,” and that the traditional definition is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”
Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”
In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.
Best regards,
Mitt Romney
June 26th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Thank you for publishing Mitt Romney letter to the US Senate. It hits the nail on the head. Protecting marriage is all about children. I recently borrowed his comments when I was interviewed to give my comments on “gay marriage” on a television show. I hope people realize that that all the propaganda they hear about “civil rights”, “equal rights” and “tolerance” is just that, propaganda from a well funded special interest group, the gay rights lobby. The truth is that it is never about being against anyone, but protecting what will give our children a more secure future—a stable home with a father and a mother.
Sincerely,
Meredith Richey
President, United Families California
http://www.UnitedFamiliesCA.org
PS. It might help to put something on your website about all the bills in state legislatures that are taking away parental rights to teach children moral values as soon as they enter the school room door. This year in California our legislators are putting forth bills that “require” multi-sexual orientation propaganda/indoctrination into our school textbooks, instruction, etc. from Kindergarten to 12th grades. There is even a legal change in the word “gender” to mean “perceived sexual orientation” so there would be special legal protection for a child who believes he is different from his physical gender identity at birth. This legislation (we currently have three bills, each one coming at these issues from a different angle) mandate school districts to have this in the schools or state money will be withdrawn. The challenge is that these types of bills are happening around the country and parents don’t know about them. Once in place, parents have little say in their child’s “education.”