WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, testified before the Maryland Senate’s Judicial Proceedings committee today against S.B. 241, a bill that would redefine marriage in Maryland.
Sprigg’s testimony was in response to the argument by advocates of redefining marriage that homosexual “marriage” does not harm heterosexual marriages. His comments drew from studies in the Journal of Research on Adolescence, Child Development and the book Fatherless America.
“This is an improper way of framing the central question at issue, which is not how one couple’s relationship would affect another’s, but how changing the definition of a fundamental social institution would affect society as a whole,” Sprigg noted.
In his statement Sprigg said:
“While not every child has the benefit of being raised by his or her married biological mother and father from birth to adulthood, legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ would mean that, for the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.
“Scholarly literature leaves no doubt about the ideal family form for children. It consists of a mother and father who are committed to one another in marriage. Children raised by their married mother and father experience lower rates of numerous social pathologies.”
Sprigg noted that fewer children would be raised by a mother and a father, birth rates would fall, and, “We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.”
To read Sprigg’s full testimony, click here: http://www.frc.org/testimony/testimony-of-peter-sprigg-before-the-maryland-state-senate-in-opposition-to-sb-241
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading …
Posted in 
Add to Google
Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.
Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
This is simply a matter of treating Gay and Straight couples equally under the law. I can’t imagine how simply acknowledging the existence and rights of Gay couples is going to cause the collapse of civilization.
The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.