THE FAMILY FOUNDATION

As the election draws near, political candidates scurry for radio and television airtime as well as the mailing of campaign literature in the last days before Election Day. But they are not alone. Those working against the Marriage Protection Amendment are planning a sizeable radio and television campaign designed to erode support for the amendment. The concern is that their message is distorting what the amendment will actually do.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was initiated after the renegade judges and independent mayors and city officials across the nation began taking matters into their own hands and authorizing same-sex marriage. The actual bill that was finally passed was not drafted until halfway through the 2004 General Assembly session. Its purpose, then, was simply to defend the institution of marriage from the new wave of those that sought to redefine it.

This being the case the Marriage Protection Amendment does not address various rights and benefits of individual citizens. It is simply focused on marriage, keeping it in its unique and special place in our society. The reality is that any individual that has rights, benefits and privileges on Nov. 1 will have those same rights, benefits, and privileges on Nov. 3 after it passes.

Historically, marriage in America has always been defined as one man and one woman. This was reaffirmed when the Utah territory petitioned to become a state. At that time, one of the criteria that it had to satisfy was to stop the practice of polygamy and conform to what America has always known marriage to be: one man and one woman.

In American history, there have been five universal pillars for marriage: 1) Neither the person desiring to be married nor their betrothed can already be married; 2) They must be an adult and they must be marrying an adult; 3) They may not marry a close family member; 4) They must marry a human being; and 5) They must marry someone of the opposite sex.

Currently, the gay and lesbian coalition is attempting to redefine marriage by eliminating the fifth pillar. Bigamists, polygamists, and polyamorists (those desiring group marriage) are focused on the first pillar. In addition, there are even some groups who are attacking the second pillar because they desire to include children in intimate relationships.

Opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment try to open the door to their plan for marriage by suggesting that it is a denial of their civil rights. Clearly, given the five pillars that have been the basis for marriage in America, no one in society has ever had the right to marry anyone they want, and even more specifically, no one or one group has ever had the civil right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

By the end of the day on Nov. 2, marriage in Kentucky will either be protected with constitutional authority or the door will have been swung wide open for any number of redefinitions. It is likely that a majority of Kentuckians will vote “Yes” to protect marriage. The question remains whether it will be a large majority that will make a strong statement to Kentucky politicians and to Washington policymakers as well.
Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst

As the election draws near, political candidates scurry for radio and television airtime as well as the mailing of campaign literature in the last days before Election Day. But they are not alone. Those working against the Marriage Protection Amendment are planning a sizeable radio and television campaign designed to erode support for the amendment. The concern is that their message is distorting what the amendment will actually do.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was initiated after the renegade judges and independent mayors and city officials across the nation began taking matters into their own hands and authorizing same-sex marriage. The actual bill that was finally passed was not drafted until halfway through the 2004 General Assembly session. Its purpose, then, was simply to defend the institution of marriage from the new wave of those that sought to redefine it.

This being the case the Marriage Protection Amendment does not address various rights and benefits of individual citizens. It is simply focused on marriage, keeping it in its unique and special place in our society. The reality is that any individual that has rights, benefits and privileges on Nov. 1 will have those same rights, benefits, and privileges on Nov. 3 after it passes.

Historically, marriage in America has always been defined as one man and one woman. This was reaffirmed when the Utah territory petitioned to become a state. At that time, one of the criteria that it had to satisfy was to stop the practice of polygamy and conform to what America has always known marriage to be: one man and one woman.

In American history, there have been five universal pillars for marriage: 1) Neither the person desiring to be married nor their betrothed can already be married; 2) They must be an adult and they must be marrying an adult; 3) They may not marry a close family member; 4) They must marry a human being; and 5) They must marry someone of the opposite sex.

Currently, the gay and lesbian coalition is attempting to redefine marriage by eliminating the fifth pillar. Bigamists, polygamists, and polyamorists (those desiring group marriage) are focused on the first pillar. In addition, there are even some groups who are attacking the second pillar because they desire to include children in intimate relationships.

Opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment try to open the door to their plan for marriage by suggesting that it is a denial of their civil rights. Clearly, given the five pillars that have been the basis for marriage in America, no one in society has ever had the right to marry anyone they want, and even more specifically, no one or one group has ever had the civil right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

By the end of the day on Nov. 2, marriage in Kentucky will either be protected with constitutional authority or the door will have been swung wide open for any number of redefinitions. It is likely that a majority of Kentuckians will vote “Yes” to protect marriage. The question remains whether it will be a large majority that will make a strong statement to Kentucky politicians and to Washington policymakers as well.