State lawmakers returning to Springfield this week, are expected to debate the controversial proposal to redefine marriage. Proponents of marriage re-definition are pulling out all the stops during the lame duck session of the General Assembly (January 2-9); even pulling President Obama into the debate hoping that his recent statements in favor of same-sex “marriage” will sway votes in Springfield.
The Illinois Family Institute's (IFI) Dave Smith and Laurie Higgins are calling for Illinoisans to make their voices heard on the issue. They note, "The silence and complacency demonstrated by far too many Illinoisans on issues related to homosexuality and children, including marriage, should be shocking. The tragedy is that it’s not. While the Left pushes their unholy agenda with tenacity and religious fervor, conservatives say and do virtually nothing out of fear and a woefully misguided notion of compassion. It’s long past time for conservatives to be as bold and tenacious in defense of marriage as the other side is in destroying it."
IFI provided talking points on the issue:
- Those who identify as homosexual have the freedom to make lifetime commitments to whomever they wish. They have no right to redefine the institution of marriage for everyone else.
- Governments recognize the sexually complementary institution of marriage in order to protect the inherent rights and needs of children, which assures the continued health and stability of the country.
- Children have an inherent, inviolate right to know and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents, a right that is further undermined by homosexual marriage.
- If the government severs marriage from gender, sexual complementarity and procreative potential, there is no rational reason to prohibit plural marriage or incestuous marriage.
- Although subjective feelings of love are important to those choosing to marry, they are irrelevant to the government’s reasons for being involved in recognizing, regulating and promoting marriage. The government is involved in marriage centrally to protect the rights and needs of children by securing the connection of children to their biological parents.
- Despite assurances of religious protections, people of faith will lose religious rights if same-sex “marriage” is legalized.
- The freedom to decide what our children and grandchildren are taught in schools will come under attack. Proponents of the normalization of homosexuality will vigorously push for even elementary school children to be taught about homosexuality via the topic of “diverse family structures” and “family diversity.”
- Despite what “progressives” say, legal prohibitions of same-sex “marriage” are not equivalent to bans on interracial marriage. First, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Second, bans on interracial marriage introduced a criteria that was not essential to marriage: race. One’s race has nothing to do with the central defining feature of marriage: procreative potential.
- Society does not create marriage; society merely recognizes a type of relationship that exists and predates the state.