The Issues: Marriage and Family

I oppose redefining traditional institutions; some may argue that they should be changed because they are the creation of religious doctrine and many politicians are seeking to distance themselves from religion for the sake of being politically correct regardless of the cost. Simply because a concept is found in a religious doctrine does not give us the grounds to devalue it completely; murder is unacceptable regardless of whether it is mentioned in the Bible or not.

One such traditional institution being redefined is 'marriage.' This term has had an understood meaning for over 700 years; judicial activism to redefine the term from the bench for the purpose of social engineering is totally unacceptable and beyond the scope of their Constitutional power.

I have no issue with two individuals entering into a same-sex civil union; this is essentially a contract that harms no other person. They may even empower each other, through Powers of Attorney or other means, to the same rights over each other as a married couple would enjoy. This would allow them to make medical decisions for each other, split assets upon separation, and so forth.

When a state recognizes a same-sex civil union, it typically offers this couple the same benefits and penalties associated with being married. This is done through the legislative branch and is an intentional conferral of benefits and penalties.

By using the judicial bench to redefine 'marriage,' we would be granting new privileges and penalties beyond the intent of original legislation and third-party contracts. The government, at the federal level alone, has over 1,100 benefits and penalties associated with marriage. These range from the marriage tax penalty to Social Security benefits for a surviving spouse. When legislators passed legislation enabling these benefits and penalties, they had a certain intent. By redefining the word 'marriage' from the bench, the scope of the passed legislation is broadened well beyond the original intent.

If it is the intent of state legislators to extend these privileges and penalties to those in same-sex civil unions, they should pass legislation clearly stating that those in civil unions will have the same rights, priviliges and penalties as married couples.

An argument has been made under the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, in the Equal Protection Clause, to treat marriage as a right of same-sex couples. This amendment requires no state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Their position is that same-sex couples are denied the ability to marry and are not afforded equal privileges. This is important in that (1) other states recognize marriages, but not necessarily civil unions, and (2) same-sex marriages would be afforded the same privileges and penalties offered to other married couples in the state.

The problem with this argument is that those in the gay and lesbian community do have the right to get married. Since marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman," they elect to not marry. Since this is not a winning argument, they must either get the states to pass legislation recognizing civil unions, the proper approach, or use judicial activists to subvert the meaning of the word 'marriage.'

States that wish to recognize same-sex marriages should be encouraged to do so; however, another state should not be forced to recognize the relationship if it is against the wishes of its citizens. To force another state to recognize this relationship would be to force it to offer all the privileges and penalties associated with marriage even if it was not the intent of law-makers when the law was passed. It will also force the citizens of that state to subsidize, through tax dollars, benefits to a larger segment of the population.

Under current laws, a redefined 'marriage' would also impact others beyond the domestic partners and the couple's relationship with the government. It will also impact third-parties. If an employer has a contract with an employee to offer health coverage to a married spouse, we will increase the costs incurred by that employer (who is not a party to the marriage contract) even if it was not the employers original intent to offer such benefits to same-sex couples.

Ultimately, government should get out of the business of licensing marriages beyond acting as a record-keeper. It should also eliminate any preferential or punitive laws related to marital status or gender-preference. Together, this would place marriage under the dominion of the religious community; if a church opted to recognize traditional as well as same-sex marriages, that would be at the church's discretion. It would also not coercively impact any other third party. The role of government would be to assist in enforcing the marriage contract via the judicial system if necessary.

By privatizing Social Security and allowing individuals to own their own retirement plans, they can decide who gets their savings after their death. By utilizing the FairTax, we can provide all citizens the same tax treatment regardless of marital status or gender-preference. With a number of other reforms, we can return the religious institution of marriage back to the church. And by recognizing the right of individuals to enter into personal contracts, the unions of any committed couple can be recognized.

On the Issues:

I support the existing Defense of Marriage Act which defines, for federal purposes, marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It permits states to recognize same-sex marriages but does not require other states to recognize such a marriage.
I support the right of and encourage those states so disposed to recognize same-sex unions and offer all the privileges and penalties associated with marriage to those couples.
I support removing penalties and benefits associated with marriage from our laws. As an example, with the Fair Tax (see the position statement on Tax Reform), the monthly prebate would be the same for a married person or single person. This is much less complex than the current system which penalizes marriage and less discriminatory.
Once discriminatory laws have been repealed or amended, states should be encouraged to leave marriage to religious institutions or private contracts.
I support the right of employers to offer, or not offer, benefits to the same-sex spouse of an employee according to their own value systems.
I oppose elevating a gay/lesbian lifestyle to that of a protected class that must be accepted by others through the force of government. There should be no governmental effort to legitimize or deligitimize same-sex relationships.
I affirm the value of two parents in the home, and I oppose any legislation that would provide incentives to encourage the breakup of a two-parent family.
I believe the government should not have a role in the adoption of children except as a record-keeper unless the government itself has custody of the child or children involved. Adoption, custody and legal guardianship are private issues to be dealt with between the parent(s) or agency and the person(s) who wish to enter into these types of commitments. Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion, or abuse.
I support stronger enforcement of child support laws.

Home
Main Menu Home About Will The Issues The 2nd District News and Events Contact Us Get Involved Contribute Links and Resources MySpace Page Facebook Profile Candidate Profile Team Liberty Content Management	Marriage and Family On The Issues Government Reform Election Reform Energy Independence Foreign Policy Taxation National Defense Rights and Liberties Nanny Government Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Right to Bear Arms Right to Life Right to Privacy Social and Domestic Issues Agriculture Crime and Violence Drug Issues Education and School Choice Environment Family Budget Healthcare Housing Immigration & Border Security Marriage and Family Poverty and Welfare Social Security and Retirement Technology & Infrastructure Communications Internet Other Technologies I oppose redefining traditional institutions; some may argue that they should be changed because they are the creation of religious doctrine and many politicians are seeking to distance themselves from religion for the sake of being politically correct regardless of the cost. Simply because a concept is found in a religious doctrine does not give us the grounds to devalue it completely; murder is unacceptable regardless of whether it is mentioned in the Bible or not. One such traditional institution being redefined is 'marriage.' This term has had an understood meaning for over 700 years; judicial activism to redefine the term from the bench for the purpose of social engineering is totally unacceptable and beyond the scope of their Constitutional power. I have no issue with two individuals entering into a same-sex civil union; this is essentially a contract that harms no other person. They may even empower each other, through Powers of Attorney or other means, to the same rights over each other as a married couple would enjoy. This would allow them to make medical decisions for each other, split assets upon separation, and so forth. When a state recognizes a same-sex civil union, it typically offers this couple the same benefits and penalties associated with being married. This is done through the legislative branch and is an intentional conferral of benefits and penalties. By using the judicial bench to redefine 'marriage,' we would be granting new privileges and penalties beyond the intent of original legislation and third-party contracts. The government, at the federal level alone, has over 1,100 benefits and penalties associated with marriage. These range from the marriage tax penalty to Social Security benefits for a surviving spouse. When legislators passed legislation enabling these benefits and penalties, they had a certain intent. By redefining the word 'marriage' from the bench, the scope of the passed legislation is broadened well beyond the original intent. If it is the intent of state legislators to extend these privileges and penalties to those in same-sex civil unions, they should pass legislation clearly stating that those in civil unions will have the same rights, priviliges and penalties as married couples. An argument has been made under the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, in the Equal Protection Clause, to treat marriage as a right of same-sex couples. This amendment requires no state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Their position is that same-sex couples are denied the ability to marry and are not afforded equal privileges. This is important in that (1) other states recognize marriages, but not necessarily civil unions, and (2) same-sex marriages would be afforded the same privileges and penalties offered to other married couples in the state. The problem with this argument is that those in the gay and lesbian community do have the right to get married. Since marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman," they elect to not marry. Since this is not a winning argument, they must either get the states to pass legislation recognizing civil unions, the proper approach, or use judicial activists to subvert the meaning of the word 'marriage.' States that wish to recognize same-sex marriages should be encouraged to do so; however, another state should not be forced to recognize the relationship if it is against the wishes of its citizens. To force another state to recognize this relationship would be to force it to offer all the privileges and penalties associated with marriage even if it was not the intent of law-makers when the law was passed. It will also force the citizens of that state to subsidize, through tax dollars, benefits to a larger segment of the population. Under current laws, a redefined 'marriage' would also impact others beyond the domestic partners and the couple's relationship with the government. It will also impact third-parties. If an employer has a contract with an employee to offer health coverage to a married spouse, we will increase the costs incurred by that employer (who is not a party to the marriage contract) even if it was not the employers original intent to offer such benefits to same-sex couples. Ultimately, government should get out of the business of licensing marriages beyond acting as a record-keeper. It should also eliminate any preferential or punitive laws related to marital status or gender-preference. Together, this would place marriage under the dominion of the religious community; if a church opted to recognize traditional as well as same-sex marriages, that would be at the church's discretion. It would also not coercively impact any other third party. The role of government would be to assist in enforcing the marriage contract via the judicial system if necessary. By privatizing Social Security and allowing individuals to own their own retirement plans, they can decide who gets their savings after their death. By utilizing the FairTax, we can provide all citizens the same tax treatment regardless of marital status or gender-preference. With a number of other reforms, we can return the religious institution of marriage back to the church. And by recognizing the right of individuals to enter into personal contracts, the unions of any committed couple can be recognized. On the Issues: I support the existing Defense of Marriage Act which defines, for federal purposes, marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It permits states to recognize same-sex marriages but does not require other states to recognize such a marriage. I support the right of and encourage those states so disposed to recognize same-sex unions and offer all the privileges and penalties associated with marriage to those couples. I support removing penalties and benefits associated with marriage from our laws. As an example, with the Fair Tax (see the position statement on Tax Reform), the monthly prebate would be the same for a married person or single person. This is much less complex than the current system which penalizes marriage and less discriminatory. Once discriminatory laws have been repealed or amended, states should be encouraged to leave marriage to religious institutions or private contracts. I support the right of employers to offer, or not offer, benefits to the same-sex spouse of an employee according to their own value systems. I oppose elevating a gay/lesbian lifestyle to that of a protected class that must be accepted by others through the force of government. There should be no governmental effort to legitimize or deligitimize same-sex relationships. I affirm the value of two parents in the home, and I oppose any legislation that would provide incentives to encourage the breakup of a two-parent family. I believe the government should not have a role in the adoption of children except as a record-keeper unless the government itself has custody of the child or children involved. Adoption, custody and legal guardianship are private issues to be dealt with between the parent(s) or agency and the person(s) who wish to enter into these types of commitments. Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion, or abuse. I support stronger enforcement of child support laws.
Paid for by the Adkins For Congress Committee. Copyright © 2012, Adkins For Congress Committee. SummitCMS Web Platform © 2001-2012, First Summit Group, LLC. Last Updated: September 10, 2008