And Dr. Forrest Sheffield , pastor of Tupelo's Harrisburg Baptist Church, emphasizes the importance of Bible believing churches being united in the battle. He asserts, "The fight is between the devil and God. It's between the devil's people -- who are being led by the devil -- and God's people. Even the homosexuals are not our enemies; the ultimate enemy of God is always Satan, and his desire is always to tear down and destroy what God wants to do, and what is best, and what God has said."

But I still believe in the institution of marriage, still believe it is worth saving. Whatever else it has been, it has functioned as a building block of civilization. And a loving and stable marriage remains, I believe, the best institution for bringing well-adjusted children into adulthood.

The institution deserves at least an honest debate. It hasn't gotten that. We cannot begin to work on restoring heterosexual marriage unless we are candid about the cultural changes -- starting with the Enlightenment and its emphasis on the individual -- that have contributed to its decline. This vicious and vulgar business of blaming gays and lesbians gets us nowhere.

With that ugly business (the amendment) behind us, perhaps it will be possible now to have a legitimate discussion about the dire state of heterosexual marriage.

Many political analysts say President Bush is almost certain to benefit from the mobilization of conservatives in those states, particularly in Michigan and Oregon, where amendments seem likely to make the ballot. "It will generate higher turnout among conservative Christians, who would tend to vote for President Bush," said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at Akron University.

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics has released its annual report on child wellbeing. The good news:

• The teenage birth rate hit a record low in 2002.
• The number of children who are either perpetrators or victims of violent crimes is down.
• The child mortality rate is down.

The bad news:

• Child obesity is up.
• The percentage of low birth weight babies has increased.
• The poverty rate for children who are related to the head of their household rose slightly.

The full report can be found here.

Whether we want to face it or not, the issue of same-sex marriage logically and unavoidably flows into the issue of same-sex parenting, especially for those couples who want to bring children into their legally sanctioned, same-sex marital relationship. And unless I'm missing something here, at its core, what's being said will have an incredibly powerful and profound impact on the very foundation of our society. An impact that is not theoretical in nature, but actual and personally applicable to all. By virtue of their position on marriage, a gay couple (male-male) who wants to bring a child into the relationship is making the statement that a mother is not a critically vital and necessary part of a child's development. Other than to provide an egg for fertilization, and a womb to incubate a fetus, a gay couple is basically stating that a mother's role in a child's life is non-essential. A gay couple must believe that it is perfectly healthy, appropriate and actually preferable for boys and girls to go through their entire lives, from birth to death, without ever experiencing the love of a mother. A lesbian couple (female-female) who wants to bring a child into the relationship is making the statement that a father is not a critically vital and necessary part of any child's development. Other than to provide sperm for fertilization, a father's role in a child's life is non-essential. A lesbian couple is also proclaiming that the couple can provide for its child whatever a father might have been able to provide without any significant loss or negative impact at all in the child's development. Yet, while I disagree with the parental philosophies of same-sex couples, that's not what really concerns me in all of this. What really troubles me is what the approval of same-sex marriage says about our governing bodies and our society as a whole. As a result of the intent and design of same-sex marriage, and its inherent parental philosophies, in essence, if our society and government adopt and legalize same-sex marriage, we are basically embracing these same philosophies about parenting. We as a society are basically proclaiming that the person and role of a mother or a father (depending upon the couple) is not a necessary component for any child's development. And if we take this to its logical conclusions, here's what else we are really saying. We are thus proclaiming to future generations of children that it really doesn't matter to us if they are brought up without either a mother or a father. Getting the opportunity to be brought up with both a father and a mother is not an inherent right of theirs that should be sought after and protected, nor is it a right that should be fought for. And although some of us may have experienced the love and care of a mom and/or a dad for ourselves, that doesn't matter. Times are different, technology is more advanced and parenting is for anyone who really wants it. As long as two people "love" each other, they can be and should be, allowed to be parents. So, as we look out into the future, we need to get ready to say good-bye to "mom" and "dad." These will soon become nothing more than a couple of archaic concepts from a bygone, pre-enlightened generation. And look for the far-reaching yet inevitable changes that will come as a result of this decision. The terms "mother" and "father" will gradually be replaced by the more generic term "parent" in all areas of public discourse, policy and education. Is this what we as a society are really saying here? I believe that we are. And if so, are we really OK with this? Are we?

It is a fact that sociologists say marriage, as we have traditionally known and practiced it, is the ideal circumstance for the creation and rearing and nurturing of children. But it is a fact that not all children have the opportunity of a family with a mother and a father, though what marriage does as a legal institution is to say to children here and those yet unborn that there is a legal framework in which they can enjoy protection and have the society of a mother and a father.
...
I make no apology for supporting many of the needs of gay and lesbian Americans. ... I think our society is changing its heart on these issues in ways that Americans want to be tolerant, they want to be careful, they want to say to gays and lesbians that we love you, we include you, we care about you.

But in saying that, I think many feel intuitively to be careful on the issue of marriage. Marriage is a word. Words have meaning. Few words have more meaning to our culture and our future and our civilization than marriage because marriage ultimately is about more than just consenting adults. It is about the natural rearing and nurturing of children, preparing them for citizenship under the most ideal circumstances possible.

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level."

A "master plan?" By people who want to "destroy" the institution of marriage? Who on earth is he talking about?

[S]elf-described "marriage nut" David Blankenhorn expressed support for the proposal [to abolish marriage as a legal category]: "I've spent my whole public life arguing that marriage is an important public institution in the interest of children, but we may have reached a point in our society where we can no longer sustain a common legal definition." I agree, and with less regret. If one size of family never did fit all, never has the realtiy of family diversity been more apparent. A progressive family policy should support not just gay unions but the many-colored rainbow of de facto families in our midst.

We have yet to hear of a happily married straight couple who called it quits because marriage licenses have been issued to gay couples in Oregon ... If gay marriage threatens the underpinnings of traditional marriage anywhere in the country, we should be seeing evidence in Oregon by now. In fact, life has pretty much gone on as usual for heterosexual couples in the months since Multnomah County issued more than 3,000 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Those licenses did not entice straight people to suddenly "turn gay."

Inflamed by Bush's anti-gay-marriage rhetoric -- and hopelessly unable to find anything inspiring to say about the war or the economy -- an alliance of cynical political operatives and earnest evangelicals recently threw the amendment crusade into high gear. Their professed objective is to restrict marriage rights to straight couples only, but their secret delight is watching Democratic pols dance the tightrope of being pro-gay rights but also anti-gay marriage.

George: Let me ask you something. If you and Mona were ever to... dance, how do you decide who leads? I mean... do you take turns? Do you discuss it beforehand? How does that work?

Susan: You're an idiot.

George: Why? That's a *legitimate* sociological question.

The two dancers say that the rules are archaic and that they have proved that two men can dance powerfully and still be artistic. Moreover, they ask, if questions of gay identity and inclusion are being engaged in the workplace and in the bonds of marriage, then why not in professional and amateur sport?

Mr. Halley and Mr. Guzman, who are not romantically involved, ... chang[e] leader-follower roles many times during a single piece of music....

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards say that they oppose gay marriage but that the matter should be left to the states. In opposing the president, aides said, they will argue that Mr. Bush is trying to subvert the Constitution for political ends.

It is heartening to see that the Republicans who had hoped to score political points today by holding a Senate vote on adding a ban on same-sex marriage to the Constitution have run into unexpectedly broad resistance across the ideological spectrum ... Early in the election season, Republicans seized on gay marriage as a promising cultural issue to use against Democrats ... When President Bush campaigned recently in Ohio, where conservatives are trying to put a gay-marriage ban on the ballot, he was greeted by a newspaper advertisement taken out by a gay-rights group that said: "Jobs lost in Ohio since 2001: 255,000; gay marriages in Ohio: 0. Focus on Americans' real priorities, Mr. President."

People who really cared about marriage and the suffering of fatherless children would not rewrite our marriage law to say that kids don't need fathers, and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising children together.

Only if you can have a reasonably satisfying life, and that's not true for most people who divorce.

So what's the point of the administration's marriage meddling? Jacobs thinks that the administration's mixed signals on marriage -- O.K. for paupers, a no-no for gays -- are part of the conservative effort to "change the subject to marriage." From, for example, Iraq.

But this may be too cynical an explanation. Quite possibly, the administration wants to ban gay marriage so that gay men can be drafted to marry T.A.N.F. recipients. Think of all the problems that would solve, and, if the Queer Eye stereotype holds true, how tastefully appointed those shelters will become.