To 'Promote the General Welfare': Marriage and the Common Good

BreakPoint ^ | 14 Oct 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

"Losing [the debate about marriage] means losing marriage as a social institution, a shared public norm," writes columnist Maggie Gallagher. "The question is not whether this is a battle we can win, but whether it is a battle we can afford to lose."

Gallagher is right. As we fight this battle to keep the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, we have to be careful to articulate the value of marriage in ways that make sense to the general public. That's why this week has been designated "Marriage Protection Week," and it's why BreakPoint is focusing this week on the benefits of marriage.

Recently Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (R) spoke at the Heritage Foundation about the "Necessity of Marriage."

He began by reminding his audience that one of the purposes of government, laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution, is to "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The "general welfare" is not about individual gain, said Santorum, but about the common good -- what is beneficial to all Americans. In contrast, the so-called "right to privacy," which has been at the heart of many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, has only self-interest in mind. The right to privacy -- which is not even in the Constitution, but rather has been "found" by an activist court -- started with the sexual revolution and has led to many so-called "rights" that are similarly self-centered. These include abortion and, now, with the Supreme Court's recent LAWRENCE decision, the right to any form of consensual sex. Santorum called the right to privacy a "me-centered" right.

In contrast, he said, marriage promotes the general welfare; it's good for all of society. Promoting two-parent male/female marriages "affirms what the founders understood, promoting the common good." Marriage itself illustrates this when spouses seek "to give of themselves to each other, rather than being self-interested."

And the social benefits of marriage go on. According to a Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report, "child poverty would be nearly a third lower today if the traditional two-parent family had not deteriorated over the past three decades." Marriage, according to a 1994 Justice Department report, also reduces the risk that both men and women will become victims of violence.

And, of course, marriages sustain the nation's population, providing a future workforce. In Japan and many European countries, as people opt for singleness or for childless marriages, the growing elderly populations have too few young people working to support them.

Santorum acknowledged that the institution of marriage faces a lot of problems -- problems like divorce and domestic violence. "But that doesn't mean we should weaken it further" by redefining marriage to accommodate same-sex relationships, he said. It means instead that we need to shore it up and promote the "right way" to do marriage.

Please call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-3-CALLBP) so that we can send you more information on Marriage Protection Week. This is crucially important. After all, as Maggie Gallagher put it, "marriage is a word for the way we join men and women to make the future happen."

[Mr. Silverback]

Maggie Gallagher rocks.

[Support Free Republic]

SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[ArGee]

Santorum called the right to privacy a "me-centered" right.

Those who scream loudest about their rights are probably least secure in their source.

G-d gave us rights, but He also gave us responsibilities. Marriages work best when both spouses set aside their rights from time to time to meet their responsibilities to the family. The same holds true for societies. Voluntarily, mind you, not coerced as in Communism.

This is why the founders understood that without a Judeo-Christian morality, this nation could not endure.

Shalom.

[Arthur McGowan]

The problem with arguing that male-female marriage must be defended because it is "good for society" is that this is question-begging. Those who are proposing male-male and female-female and male-male-female and male-male-male marriage, etc., claim, based on the mere fact of their sexual attractions, that recognizing their sexual attractions as equally valid is "good for society." And our current contraceptive-marriage society has no valid response to them. As Andrew Sullivan has validly pointed out, "We are all sodomites now."

The only valid defense of male-female marriage is rooted in the nature of the human person, and the built-in intentions of the human person. If the nature of marriage as male-female is based on the mere fact that the MAJORITY of people wish to form that kind of marriage, or that the MAJORITY finds other kinds of sexual acts repulsive, then that is no defense of marriage at all.

If on the other hand, the defense of real marriage is based on the assertion (backed up by evidence) that the human person naturally desires CHILDREN, and desires sexual activity as a means to that and, AND that the human person disintegrates when sexual activity is deliberately rendered infertile, then there is a valid defense of marriage.

As long as "marriage" in our society REMAINS redefined as a legal arrangement between male and female which they may render infertile at will, "marriage" cannot be rationally defended against the demand for male-male or female-female marriage.

In short: "Marriage" in our society has already been redefined in such a way that there is no rational basis for resisting the demand for "gay marriage."

[freeeee]

The right to privacy -- which is not even in the Constitution

The author holds that we only enjoy specifically enumerated rights, and the government is not held to specifically enumerated powers. Rather government may derive limitless powers using the time tested LIBERAL method of perverting the general welfare clause.

The opposite is the case. Not all rights are enumerated:

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the government's only legitimate powers are specifically enumerated:

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But who cares about any of that when the big stick of government can be used to promote an agenda.

The author is no conservative. He is a living constitution RINO who'll trample the Constitution in a social engineering crusade that just happens this time to be favored by the right.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

[freeeee]

And, of course, marriages sustain the nation's population, providing a future workforce. In Japan and many European countries, as people opt for singleness or for childless marriages, the growing elderly populations have too few young people working to support them.

Translation: "We, the high and mighty hereby command you to breed, as to ensure a healthy supply of farm animals required to prop up the socialist ponzi scheme we call Social Security. Because when Social(ist) Security fails, the sheep will stomp their feet and bray until we lose power, and we certainly can't let that happen."

I'll provide for my own old age, thank you very much. And I'll reproduce solely if it pleases me, and for no other reason. And I have absolutely no duty whatsoever to spawn a mule born with a saddle on his back so he can pull the weight of your 'constituents'.

[N3WBI3]

What a very sad attitude... You are free to feel that way but I can imagine when it is all said and done that such a self-absorbed life is rewarding..

[freeeee]

Independance and self-sufficiency are not sad traits. They're noble, admirable traits. I don't care how unpopular they get in trendy socialist pop culture.

And I never said I wouldn't have a family or children. I just said if I did it would be for my own reasons, and not out of some obligation to my neighbors.

[Aquinasfan]

This is dead on. As the family goes, so goes society.

[lockeliberty]

To limit marriage and sex to merely it's procreative value is to miss much of the meaning of marriage and sex.

`FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'

The REASON for marriage and sex was a foreshadowing of the union between Christ and his Church. In Adam's prelapsarian condition he loved Eve because she came from his own body and she was a part of him and united in their personhoods. So also the Church is united with Christ in that we are part of Christ's body and his helpers. The importance of the sanctity of marriage lies in the realm of understanding that sin is the cause of the seperation of man and God. Christ is reestablishing his imtimacy with his wife, the Church, as a holy union that is irrevocable.

The sanctity of marriage then symbolizes our devotion to Christ. It involves a human form of intimacy that is holy like the union between Christ and his bride. To engage in a union that is outside of God's creational order is perverse. Further, I would suggest, to limit intimacy merely to procreative means is to limit our relationship with Christ. Building the family (kingdom) is surely an important part of the marriage but the intimacy is not limited to that aspect. The enjoyment of our wife (Husband) should be our first priority. (Eph 5:29-32)

[Durus]

The article and the quote from Sanatorum show a profound lack of constitutional knowledge. First of all our right are not derived from the constitution. We have all rights except those ceded to both state and federal Government. The government, BOTH state and federal, have only those powers given to them by their respective constitutions. I fail to see the specific power given to the Government to tell Americans who they can and cannot marry.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson

[Arthur McGowan]

If you will reread my post, you will note that I never limited the meaning of sexual intercourse to procreation. I stated that deliberately rendering sexual intercourse infertile leads to personal dis-integration.

[Orangedog]

What a very sad attitude... You are free to feel that way but I can imagine when it is all said and done that such a self-absorbed life is rewarding..

There are a lot of men in this country who went the marriage route, myself included. And how were we rewarded? We were kicked out of our own homes, driven into bankruptcy by the woman we thought we could trust with the help of no fault divorce laws, greedy lawyers and "family" courts who absolutely hate men. Try having you life turn inside-out by all of those parties...oh and it gets better, especially when you see them use your own kids to do it to you. You get to lose most of your assets, a large chunk of your pre-tax income and you get to be a real parent to your kids four days a month. That last item cannot be replaced by ANY amount of money. You'll just have to forgive me if I'm not in a big hurry to put a loaded gun to my head again.

You want more families? Fine...get rid of the no-fault divorce laws and the state, local and federal governments out of the business of subsidizing and encourage the destruction of the family FIRST. Until then, whats left of the American institution of marriage isn't worth saving.

[freeeee]

Well said.

I've yet to hear of any person who won't marry or will leave his existing marriage because of some homosexual he doesn't even know exists.

But I can't even begin to count the men I've heard say they won't marry because of divorce laws. I met another one just yesterday.

[freeeee]

Well said.

I've yet to hear of any person who won't marry or will leave his existing marriage because of some homosexual he doesn't even know exists.

But I can't even begin to count the men I've heard say they won't marry because of divorce laws. I met another one just yesterday.

[Orangedog]

Usually the people who cry the loudest to save marriage from whatever sub-set of cultural deviants are the same ones who support every single "screw men harder" bill that comes up for a vote? And they still think that this "civil union" crap is the REAL threat to "marriage" in the US. It's too far gone to save. This is like someone complaining about the weeds and poison ivy in their front yard when roof and foundation of the house has collapsed.

[BubbaBasher]

Are we to believe that the only reason your wife kicked you out was that divorce laws were favorable? I agree with the rest of your statement but to put the blame on a law is foolish. What if you could never divorce? People would be forced to live their lives in miserable and often dangerous situations. Even with No-Fault divorce, it's not easy and most people don't choose it lightly. I'm going through it now and would have taken this route regaurdless of how difficult it was made.

[lockeliberty]

If you will reread my post, you will note that I never limited the meaning of sexual intercourse to procreation. I stated that deliberately rendering sexual intercourse infertile leads to personal dis-integration.

OK, let's review your original quote:

If on the other hand, the defense of real marriage is based on the assertion (backed up by evidence) that the human person naturally desires CHILDREN, and desires sexual activity as a means to that and, AND that the human person disintegrates when sexual activity is deliberately rendered infertile, then there is a valid defense of marriage.

Your quote certainly implies that the act of sex is strictly for a desire for children and a means to that end. If marriage is truly symbolic of the union of Christ and his Church then you should be able to provide some scriptural context that shows that contraception is a form of spiritual "dis-integration".

[Orangedog]

No, the reason she wanted me out was because she got bored. The no fault divorce laws just made it easy for her to do and guaranteed her a very favorable outcome.

Persoanlly I'm ashamed of the past two generations, mine included. They built this monster and now it's not only eaten us out of house and home, but it's here to stay for our kids to deal with in the future. My grandparent's generation believed in commitment. If they made one, they stuck to it. My grandparents were married for over 50 years...and a few of those were actually good! ;) Sure they bickered and sniped at each other, but to them it would have been the worst humiliation to get a divorce. Now there are litterally tens of thousands of jobs that absolutely depend on half of the marriages ending in divorce.