Defining Marriage Down: We need to protect marriage
Senator Sam Brownback
As the United States Senate debates the wisdom of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and protects against judicially-mandated same-sex unions, it is important to keep in mind the costs that we face as a society if we fail to protect traditional marriage.
Proponents of same-sex unions have pointed to a recent study showing federal revenues increasing by upwards of $1 billion a year as a result of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Ironically, most of the increased revenue would result from the still-existing marriage penalty in the tax code, which taxes married couples at higher rates than individuals. Pro-family groups have been trying to eliminate the marriage penalty for years.
Some supporters of homosexual marriage have even cited a projected boon to the wedding industry as an argument for the economic benefits of mandating same-sex marriage.
But these shortsighted arguments miss the point entirely. The costs to our society should rogue federal judges force the states to recognize the legal equivalence of same-sex unions would be significant -- even devastating -- when measured in terms of the effects on our central social institution, the family.
Read the entire article on the National Review Online website.