About a month ago I was invited to participate in a "round table" discussion on the upcoming vote regarding Wisconsin's pending Marriage Protection Amendment. Below is the text I presented to a group of approximately 100 people at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh campus on October 18, 2006.

The discussion included a Political Science professor who spoke to the comparative politics of how other nations have dealt with same-sex issues; a fellow staff member representing the Rainbow Alliance for H.O.P.E.; a local family law attorney, who turned out to be a divorce attorney in practice for the past 30 years; and me.

The discussion was civil although the crowd was mostly hostile to my message. The most disappointing thing for me was the very obvious lack of the campus Christian organizations at this event. If the Christian church isn't willing to stand up in defense of the primary model that Christ gave us - that being marriage, man to woman or Christ to the church, then we as Christians deserve the righteous judgement of an angry God.

At the very least we shouldn't be surprised when Wisconsin becomes the first state to defeat a marriage protection amendment. My text follows:

Hello and thank you all for coming out this evening. I would also like to thank the American Democracy Project and the Political Science Student Association for being co-sponsors of this event.

Let me begin by saying that marriage, all marriage, is already "same sex". It's the same sex week after week, month after month. Now, I say that jokingly and I'm glad some of you saw the intentional humor there, but really, marriage works to define the boundaries of a monogamous relationship between two people. And "monogamy" is the committed relationship of one person to another. Monogamy does not require marriage, but marriage does, or at least should, require monogamy.

So what's this all about then? Is this about marriage or about words? When you think of the word "marriage", what comes to your mind? How do you "define" marriage? What is "marriage" and how will "we" define it going forward?

Regardless of how you vote on November 7, you are voting to define marriage. The question is, who's definition will you support? Will the citizens of Wisconsin establish the definition in our state Constitution by voting "yes", or will activists be allowed to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want? That's what a "no" vote will bring.

Did you know this whole discussion wasn't even an issue just five years ago? But in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to recognize marriage as anything other than one man and one woman. Soon after, Belgium followed suit and in 2005 certain Provinces in Canada. In November of 2003 the Supreme Judiciary of Massachusetts voted 4-3 to create "legal marriage" for persons of the same sex.

Think back to the year 2001 for a moment. Was there anyone you can remember who was complaining about the status quo? Was anyone saying "You know, things in my life would be a lot better if Wisconsin would allow for same-sex marriage"?

Perhaps, but not in my hearing. Yet those who have been promoting tolerance for the past few decades have seemingly achieved that goal, and are now moving on to the next step - that being full acceptance for the way they choose to live their lives.

Now, I think Wisconsinites are pretty tolerant with the way things are, and that's not a bad thing. But we need to draw the line when it comes to accepting something as normal rather than merely tolerating it.

Do not be deceived, a "no" vote on November 7 will redefine marriage just as a "yes" vote will protect traditional marriage here in Wisconsin. Voting "yes" will replace the words "husband and wife" with the words "man and woman". Most people don't have a problem with that - most people…

It's the second part of those 59 words that cause a problem for those who seek to change traditional marriage into something it was never intended to be.

You see, the words "husband and wife" are already in many places throughout the Wisconsin Constitution, but nowhere does that document define "husband" as a "man" or "wife" as a "woman".

That's what happened in Massachusetts when their high court decided that because the definition wasn't clear the legislature must allow for legal "marriage" for persons of the same sex.

Do you think the people of Massachusetts, who by the way voted against same-sex civil unions, ever thought they would be the first state in these United States to allow for same-sex marriages? It was done by judicial fiat, not by the will of the people, and really by only one vote. The same thing could happen here since the current wording in our Constitution is very similar to what Massachusetts had prior to November of 2003.

That's why a "yes" vote on November 7 is so crucial. Although, to date, there hasn't been any issue with any of the judges or courts in Wisconsin regarding this, who's to say what could happen down the road if we don't take action now to protect traditional marriage.

Some of the arguments you may have heard against this amendment include "how will same-sex marriage hurt my marriage?" or "why not allow for civil marriage AND religious marriage"?

Government exists to enact and enforce laws that protect and benefit society as a whole. If this were just an issue between "my" marriage and one "same-sex" marriage, we could probably work things out between us. But to redefine marriage so that all of society must accept something that has not demonstrated its value to society is a mistake.

Homosexuality is not new; it's been around for almost as long as there have been people. Don't you think that if there had been some societal benefit to recognizing the union of two men or two women that all of the smart people who lived in all of the centuries before us would have already done something about it? How arrogant to think that we are more enlightened that Aristotle or Socrates.

The fact is society benefits from monogamous, heterosexual marriage. It always has, and governments have traditionally recognized this and historically protected it.

The book "Why Gender Matters" by Leonard Sax, a noted pediatrician and psychologist, clearly explains that girls and boys are different. They play differently. They learn differently. They fight differently. They see the world differently.

These inherent differences in the sexes are what brought "boy germs" and "girl germs" to the playground when we were kids. The differences between us facilitate the largest walls of separation. But it is ultimately the differences between the sexes that draw us to one another, and marriage was intended to be the glue that holds us together.

Marriage is much more than a civil or a religious institution. Marriage precedes and exceeds the church and the state. Theologically, I believe marriage is the first institution made among men. However, anthropology teaches us the same thing. Permanent pair-bonding between male and female in primitive cultures rose up and existed before the state did; even before religious systems did.

The social experiments that have been conducted on the Family over the past 30 years have failed. The sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, single parenting by choice, fatherless homes, all have demonstrated the worth and the value of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. In fact, no significant measure of human well being has been elevated by any of the experimentation that we have seen over the past several decades.

When marriage declines in a culture, all of the important social and personal measures of well begin also decline. The state has a vested interest in making sure that marriage is strong, and in making sure that marriage brings male and female together to create and care for the next generation.

There is significant scientific evidence, literally thousands of studies, indicating that children are hindered developmentally when they are denied their mothers or fathers. Same-sex marriage is the intentional creation of fatherless or motherless homes.

Further, most researchers agree that children do best when they are raised by their two, married, biological parents. By definition, no child living in a two-parent, same-sex home is living with both biological parents.

Our maleness and femaleness go right to the very core of our being. Every person matters as a male or female. Each has what the other needs, but lacks.

I don't deny for one minute that any two individuals have the capacity to raise a child in a safe, loving environment.

But, love will not be enough to help two dads guide a scared, young girl through her first period or help her pick out her first bra. Men have never experienced these things.

Likewise, what kind of message would two women teach a little girl about loving a man? Or what would they teach a little boy about growing into a man, having never experienced that themselves?

Any family that intentionally rejects either male or female, saying either is not necessary, cannot be viewed as good and virtuous in a society that esteems the unique value of both male and female. The idea that male and female are replaceable is really an anti-human message.

Heterosexual marriage celebrates diversity by bringing the two parts of humanity, male and female, together into a cooperative bond.

For this reason Wisconsin needs to defend traditional marriage, and a "yes" vote on November 7 will do just that.

Thank you.

=============================================================
If you enjoy these commentaries and have not already subscribed to the list, click here to be added and you will receive an email notice when a new post is available.

If you have subscribed in the past and no longer wish to receive these commentaries then click here to be removed from the list. You will receive one final message confirming your desire to be removed.

If you aren't sure how you came to receive this then perhaps someone you know forwarded it to you. Please feel free to forward this message with the SUBSCRIBE / UNSUBSCRIBE info in tact. Always use Bcc: and clean up a message before you forward it. No one likes scrolling through forwards or reading between all the >>> junk. Thank you for your support!