Thursday, October 9, 2014

(Corrected) The Case For Traditional Marriage

Note: After being made aware I had posted an errant column, I have removed it and replaced it with the correct version. The previous version was never meant to be published, but was for my records alone, were personal notes for an upcoming speech, and were published through an honest mistake. That version had many direct quotes without proper credit given to the author. I have fixed the problem and promise to be more aware in the future.    

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal to a federal district court’s earlier ruling, essentially removing Oklahoma’s ban on homosexual marriage.

I, as well as multiple other state officials, immediately expressed my outrage to the blatant disregard of the very moral fibers upon which this country was founded and for the gross overreach of the federal judicial system. In an issue which boils down to state's rights, three individuals in a federal district court overturned what 1.1 million people stated in defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

I have spent the last several days stating and restating my personal opinion, but for this column, I want to take a step back and look at this issue from a practical standpoint, ask a few questions and provide answers on this important issue.

What is marriage, why does traditional marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage?

We first have to ask ourselves why the institution of marriage exists. The simple answer would be so that population and society as we know can continue. Practically, marriage brings one man and one woman together to be a father and mother to the children their union produces. This union is founded on the indisputable truth that men and women are made differently, yet made complementary at the same time. Without these differences, including the physical differences which allow reproduction and the rearing of their children, marriage would just be another relationship. Without marriage, there would be no civilization. Marriage has many public purposes that even go beyond its private purposes. This fact is why a majority of states have attempted to affirm and place into state statute that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The reason government recognizes marriage is for its benefits to society. No other institution produces the kinds of results that marriage does. Proper child-rearing and the encouragement by the state to take responsibility of the family structure are among the many benefits. 

As Ryan T. Anderson from the Heritage Foundation said in an article titled "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It” (2013): "Promoting traditional marriage does not at any time ban any type of relationship. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else."

What we as a society are doing in redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is placing the desires of adults of more importance than the needs of the children within these relationships. Selfishness is blinding our eyes to the needs of the next generation. Additionally, redefining marriage within state and federal governments reduces the institution to whatever government at the time defines it as. In other words, if an individual has an emotional connection to a rock or even (although it now sounds outrageous) a young child, then government could recognize and give the definition of marriage in that instance. 

I believe we are traveling down the slippery slope of convenience over principle and a false definition of equality over practicality. 

Never hesitate to contact me. Email me at: Call me at: (405) 557-7349. Follow me on Facebook: Representative Josh Cockroft, and Twitter: @VoteCockroft27.


  1. JOSH COCKROFT WROTE: "In an issue which boils down to state's rights, three individuals in a federal district court overturned what 1.1 million people stated in defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

    MY RESPONSE: This issue does NOT "[boil] down to state's rights." This issue boils down to "equal protection" under the law; therefore, the issue boils down to constitutional rights. Allow me to explain.

    A state has the "right" to enact laws ONLY on the condition that these laws exist in harmony with the Constitution of the United States of America. Before enacting any law, a state must first demonstrate a "compelling state interest" for proposing such a mandate. If a state's proposal can survive "rational basis scrutiny," only then shall it be accepted as law. Regardless of what the people voted, Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage could not withstand any "rational basis scrutiny."

    I'll restate that the individual states have the "right" to pass laws so long as these laws do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it did so without providing a "compelling state interest." Therefore, the State of Oklahoma has no "right" to legislate any such ban. Provided that the state has no right to enforce an injunction, the striking down of said ban was never a "state's rights" issue.

    I'd really like to continue, but your post is simply too littered with fallacious assumptions and conclusions for any type of meaningful response that I might be able to provide tonight. I'll try to find the time to respond later, but doing so will take a lot of time. Unfortunately, what takes you minutes to write (or perhaps copy/paste), takes tenfold for me to explain where you've erred. Perhaps we can discuss this over Skype. You can defend your views via one-on-one discussion, and I'll post the video to YouTube for all the world to see. If not, I'll just have to do my best to respond later in writing.

  2. I see holes in your "case" You make it sound as though children are a requirement in a marriage. Also what about all the single parents raising kids and grandparents raising kids.... what about people who are unable to have children. I would like to point out I do have gay/lesbian friends and family members that are doing a great job of raising their children. (the ones that have kids)..they have good high end jobs, the kids are well loved, stable environment and in case you were worried it does not affect the childrens orientations and I'm pretty sure the kids have no interest in what is going on in the bedroom which is about the only difference there would be. (what if say a mom and an aunt were raising the kids?) Also some gay/lesbian couples adopt kids that normally would not get adopted into loving homes. What IS happening though is that by denying them the right to be recognized as an actual legal couple there are legal situations in which the partner has no say in anything where as if they were married they could. As per your view of marriage isn't that more like a covenant marriage? and isn't that all ready an option? also it would be between two consenting adults... your attempt to try and compare that to a rock or an adult marrying someone who was too young to consent to me seems like grasping at straws

  3. I think you need to do more research on this personally. If you are going to argue against equal marriage rights fine but your reasonings at the moment have far too many holes in it. I would focus more maybe on tackling the problems leading to divorce such as domestic abuse (much more detrimental to kids) alchoholism, drug addictions, etc. than not allowing two consenting adults regardless of gender to marry. (remember before it was race that kept couples apart ...still consenting adults though not rocks or little kids ;) )