By George M. Weaver
At the 2010 White House Correspondents Association Dinner, President Obama suggested that the Jonas brothers might be interested in dating his daughters. He jokingly warned about the “predator drones” he could unleash that they would “never see … coming.” On another occasion, Obama cracked that having Secret Service protection for his daughters means that “when boys want to start dating them, they are going to be surrounded by men with guns.”
It is obvious that Obama expects his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to date and marry boys, not other girls.
This creates a dilemma. Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage means that the president’s daughters will be taught, in the legal climate Obama now supports, that it would be a good thing for them to marry other girls. It is particularly ironic that Obama says he “evolved” to his new position after consulting with his daughters.
There is something called the educational effect of the law. The law does more than commands and prohibits. It also inevitably teaches people how to behave. Aristotle recognized this 2,500 years ago. It is also implicit in our doctrines of legal precedent (that people order their affairs based on what they understand the law to be) and promulgation (that people should be informed of the content of the law so that they can conform to it).
This means that the courts have a substantial role in writing the school curriculum. This educational impact is especially strong when the law is suddenly changed to protect behavior that was previously forbidden, which is what has occurred with same-sex marriage.
The educational effect of the redefinition of marriage is already being felt in states where same-sex marriage has been legally recognized. In Massachusetts, for example, schools now teach children in elementary grades the desirability of homosexual behavior and marriage, along with their equivalence to heterosexual behavior and marriage. These children are taught this lesson through books such as “King and King,” in which a boy marries another boy, and “Heather has Two Mommies,” in which a girl has lesbian parents.
With very thin constitutional analyses, many courts, including recently the 9th Circuit in Perry v. Bown, have actively promoted the gay agenda. Although same-sex marriage is being pursued in the names of those who identify themselves as homosexual, it is doubtful that many of them really want what we assume marriage represents – lifelong commitment to one person.
But, with these decisions in the law books, it is unsurprisingly and frankly correct for the courts to rule that parents cannot now opt their children out of these school lessons. On the second day of kindergarten in states that recognize same-sex marriage, when the discussion turns to “what is a family” and “what is marriage,” same-sex marriage must be endorsed. After all, the law is the law.
Obama, Biden and their fellow cheerleaders for same-sex marriage don’t seem to realize the effect of their positions. This includes many libertarians. What they and the courts have done is unleash a bulldozer on the moral standards of most Americans. The recognition of same-sex marriage for consenting adults cannot be cordoned off and have no effect on the kindergarten curriculum.
In other words, because of policies now promoted by those who control the levers of power, your children and grandchildren will be taught that homosexual conduct and homosexual marriage are fully equivalent and equally desirable to heterosexual conduct and marriage. Johnny will be taught that before he marries a girl it would be good for him to consider marrying another boy. And Susie will be taught that before she marries a boy it would be good for her to consider marrying another girl.
When this message penetrates impressionable young minds, it will render marriage meaningless for everyone. This message will, of course, be amplified if marriage is redefined further to include corollaries such as polygamy and incestuous marriage. The pressure to sweep these practices into the definition will be difficult to resist on any rational grounds.
In the environment now supported by Obama and his allies, it will no longer be possible for parents to impart traditional or religious social values to their children. Under Obama’s regime, all states will be like Massachusetts, where the only way for parents effectively to teach their children that opposite-sex marriage is preferable to same-sex marriage is to withdraw them from public schools, an expensive option that is not available to everyone.
Anyone who has small children or grandchildren or cares about the future of this nation should be concerned about the destruction of the family that would result from Obama’s new position and the educational effect it would have through the law. In this election year, we are all worried about the economy. But the shared value of respect for the historical institution of opposite-sex marriage is, I suggest, even more fundamental to the survival of a society. How can we have a healthy economy if the glue that holds people together in families and provides for the rearing of children is dissolved?
We can presume that Obama and like-minded politicians and judges have simply sought to be compassionate toward those they see as disadvantaged. But they have apparently forgotten about the law of unintended consequences and the limitations of their powers.
George M. Weaver is a partner at Hollberg & Weaver, LLP, Atlanta, Ga., and former assistant attorney general for the state of Georgia.
