THE MARRIAGE VOW

A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY1

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.2

Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:

•  Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.3

•  LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents4 – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity. 5

•  About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically-vulnerable families.6

•  The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.7

•  Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; pervasive infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health. 8

The Candidate Vow:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

•  Personal fidelity to my spouse.9

•  Respect for the marital bonds of others.10

•  Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.11

•  Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.12

•  Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13

•  Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14

•  Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15

•  Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16

•  Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.17

•  Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18

•  Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19

•  Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20

•  Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.21

•  Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.

The Vow of Civic, Religious, Lay, Business, and Social Leaders:
We the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* that no U.S. Presidential primary candidate – nor any primary candidate for the U. S. House, Senate, Governor, state or municipal office – will, in his or her public capacity, benefit from any substantial form of aid, support, endorsement, contribution, independent expenditure, or affirmation from any of us without first affirming this Marriage Vow. Furthermore, to uphold and advance the natural Institution of Marriage, we ourselves also hereby vow* our own fidelity to this Declaration and especially, to our spouses.

So help us God.

* NOTE: Or, “solemnly attest”. Each signatory signs only in his or her individual capacity as an American citizen and current or potential leader; affiliations herein are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply formal embrace of this vow or the sentiments herein by any institution or organization.
Signatories:

Name                           Candidacy or Title/Affiliation                                         Date
____________________________________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________________________ _______________

END NOTES AND SOURCES:

1 The Marriage Vow is a work product of The FAMiLY Leader (www.thefamilyleader.com), a public advocacy organization affiliated with the Iowa Family Policy Center, and collaborating supporters across the U.S. political and ideological spectrum, who recognize that enduring, healthy marriages are necessary to healthy children and a healthy American society. Sociological data squares with tradition to argue that self-centered adult egos and agendas in American families must be subordinated to the long-term interests of America‟s children.

2 Genesis 2:18-25; Mark 10:2-9, Ephesians 5:22-33; Sherif Girgis, Robert P.George and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?,” Harvard Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010 (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155); Jay Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide, Spence Publishing, 2011, pp. 38-39; The Declaration of Independence.

3 Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts, “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review,” Institute for American Values, 2005 (www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf).

4 Gretchen Livingston and D‟Vera Cohn, “The New Demography of American Motherhood,” Pew Research Center, (Revised August 19, 2010) May 6, 2010; Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2008,” April 6, 2010, Table 1 at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_16.pdf.

5 Robert Rector, “Married Fathers: America‟s Best Weapon Against Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2934, June 6, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Married-Fathers-Americas-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty; Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2004), pp.369-397. Data from National Longitudinal Study of Youth, the 1979 cohort (NYLS79).

6 William J. Doherty and Leah Ward Sears, “Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce,” Institute for American Values, to be published in 2011.

7 Scafidi, Benjamin, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing (New York; Institute for American Values, 2008, ISBN: 1-931764-14-X), Appendix A, pp. 22-30.

8 No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism. Furthermore, no peer-reviewed empirical science or rational, scholarly demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability:

(1) That society‟s interest in the physical, psychological and sociological health of infants, children, young people and other minors is not best upheld through the enduring institution of legal marriage, especially faithful monogamy, as between only one man and one woman;

(2) That society‟s interest in a healthy, vibrant, and growing indigenous population and workforce to drive economic growth and actuarially support public and private pension, benefit and entitlement systems is in any way advanced by undermining the institution of faithful, lawful marriage as between only one man and one woman;

(3) That the longstanding religious liberties of American parents, children, religious and civic leaders who adhere to Jewish and Christian tradition, teaching and sacred texts regarding faithful heterosexual monogamy are not jeopardized by recent or pending redefinitions of legal marriage to include same-sex unions, polygamy and other kinds of intimate relations;

(4) That practices such as adultery, bisexuality, homosexuality, anal intercourse, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex, individually or collectively, lead to general improvements in:

a. Human mortality; See for example, Robert S. Hogg et al, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997, Vol. 26, no. 3. From the abstract: “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”

b. Public health,

c. Public health costs (Medicaid, Medicare, etc.)

d. General health care price inflation (medical, hospital, insurance, etc).

e. Incidence of single parent households and related social costs,

f. Incidence of epidemics and pandemics,

g. Incidence of:

i. HIV/ AIDS (Human Immunodeficiency Virus);

ii. Other retroviruses like XMRV, HTLV, etc. (affecting venereal fluids, semen, breast milk, blood);

iii. Septic bacterial infections (such as from E Coli);

iv. Hepatitis (forms of which are transmitted via fecal-oral, venereal contact);

v. Chancroid (Haemophilus ducreyi);

vi. Chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis);

vii. Granuloma inguinale or (Klebsiella granulomatis);

viii. Gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae);

ix. Syphilis (Treponema pallidum);

x. Herpes simplex

xi. Genital warts

xii. HPV (Human Papilloma Virus)

xiii. Phthirius pubis (pubic lice)

xiv. Sarcoptes scabiei (scabies)

xv. Trichomoniasis (Trichomonas vaginalis)

xvi. Anal incontinence

xvii. Abortion

xviii. Abortion-related complications

9As applicable if married now, wed in the future, or whenever interacting with another‟s spouse, a person of the opposite sex or of personal attraction. No signer herein claims to be without past wrongdoing, including that of adultery. Yet going forward, each hereby vows fidelity to his or her marital vows, to his or her spouse, to all strictures and commandments against adultery, and to resist the lure of pornography destructive to marital intimacy.

10 Personal infidelity often destroys two marriages and two families.

11 It is no secret that a handful of state and federal judges, some of whom have personally rejected heterosexuality and faithful monogamy, have also abandoned bona fide constitutional interpretation in accord with the discernible intent of the framers. In November, 2010, Iowa voters overwhelmingly rejected three such justices from the state Supreme Court in retention elections. Yet, certain federal jurists with lifetime appointments stand poised, even now, to “discover” a right of so-called same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

12 Justice Scalia‟s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html) holds that laws against such things as bigamy/polygamy, prostitution, bestiality, adult incest -- customs historically rejected within the United States -- may become Constitutionally-inevitable under U.S. Supreme Court logic which could be used to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act and laws, in the overwhelming majority of states, against so-called same-sex marriage and near-equivalents. This is particularly problematic with regard to polygamy, a demographic and strategic means for the advancement of Sharia Islamist misogyny, for attacks upon the rights of women, for the violent persecution of homosexuals, for the undermining of basic human rights, and for general religious and civil intolerance for Jewish, Christian and other non-Islamic faiths under Sharia law.

13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2006-2008; W. Bradford Wilcox, William J. Doherty, Helen Fisher, William A. Galston, Norval D. Glenn, John Gottman, Robert Lerman, Annette Mahoney, Barbara Markey, Howard J. Markman, Steven Nock, David Popenoe, Gloria G. Rodriguez, Scott M. Stanley, Linda J. Waite, Judith Wallerstein, “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” Institute for American Values, 2005

(http://americanvalues.org/pdfs/why_marriage_matters2.pdf); “Parental Involvement and Children‟s Well-Being,” Heritage Foundation, FamilyFacts.org, at http://familyfacts.org/briefs/40/parental-involvement-and-childrens-well-being (April 15, 2011).

14 Chairman Dave Camp, “Democrats‟ Ticking Time Bomb, Part III (Middle-Class Families),” The Tax Tracker, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, July 28, 2010; Robert Rector, “The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No.2767, January 20, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/the-new-federal-wedding-tax-how-obamacare-would-dramatically-penalize-marriage; Nick Kasprak, “The Potential Impact of Expiring Tax Cuts on Low-Income Taxpayers,” Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 250, October 7, 2010, at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26766.html (April 28, 2011); Parental Divorce Reduction Act, SB 556, New Mexico Senate, 50th Legislature, 1st Session, 2011, § 2, at http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0556.pdf (April 26, 2011); Benjamin Scafidi, Ibid.; William J. Doherty and Leah Ward Sears, Ibid.

15 Although signed by President Clinton in 1996, the U.S. Justice Department has abandoned good faith legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the repeal of which President Obama favors so states may be forced by courts to recognize so-called same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Therefore, we hereby applaud the commitment of Speaker John Boehner and his House Leadership to bring about appropriate legal intervention by the U.S. House of Representatives, in defense of both DOMA and the institution of the Congress itself; a binding act of the Legislative Branch of the federal government has been abandoned for ideological reasons by the Executive Branch.

16 For the event that activist Federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately strike down DOMA or state laws limiting legal marriage to one man and one woman, the signatories hereby vow to support a Marriage Amendment which would constitutionally define and limit legal marriage or marriage equivalents in the U.S. to one man and one woman, thereby especially protecting American women and children from Sharia polygamy, same-sex unions, and other debasements of Judeo-Christian hetero-monogamy. To date, the ONLY states whose elected lawmakers and governors have enacted same-sex marriage on behalf of their constituents are: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. In all 31 states in which marriage has been put to a vote of the People, same-sex marriage has been defeated and natural marriage has been upheld (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin).

17 Human trafficking, child pornography and prostitution, pimping, sexual slavery and forced abortion are inherently coercive of vulnerable females. Infanticide and abortion are inherently coercive of the babies who are killed; as a matter of human rights, we reject any form of intrauterine or extrauterine child killing which is partial-birth; live-birth; post-viability; third trimester; involving fetal pain; taxpayer-subsidized; based on gender or disability or racial discrimination against the baby; without fully-informed consent; without disclosure of pregnancy care and adoption placement options; without disclosure of abortion‟s eugenic and racist history; involving a minor without parental knowledge or consent; in disregard of conscience objections of health care professionals and institutions; involving cloning or experimentation on non-consenting human subjects; involving dangerous abortifacient drugs; or for alleged necessities other than to save the life of the mother.

18 See, e.g., Center for Military Readiness: www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp, www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp

19 We do not oppose peaceful Muslims, only the intolerant system of Sharia Islam: Princeton‟s Bernard Lewis, dean of Western scholars of Islam, says, " „My own feeling is that the greatest defect of Islam and the main reason they fell behind the West is the treatment of women,‟ he says. He makes the powerful point that repressive homes pave the way for repressive governments. „Think of a child that grows up in a Muslim household where the mother has no rights, where she is downtrodden and subservient. That's preparation for a life of despotism and subservience. It prepares the way for an authoritarian society,‟ " (The Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011 at A13). Sharia Islamist aims are abusive of women, young girls and Judeo-Christian notions of gender equality, civil tolerance and liberty. Over the long run, Sharia polygamy, multi-partner childbearing, demographic jihad and the persecution of Jews, Christians, blacks, artists, feminists, gays, freethinkers and other non-conformists poses a threat to Western human rights in general, and to American liberty in particular.

20 See, e.g., Julian Lincoln Simon, The Ultimate Resource and The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton University Press, 1981 and 1996, respectively; Mark Steyn, America Alone, Regnery Publishing, 2006; Ben J. Wattenberg, Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future, Ivan R.Dee, 2004;“Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family,” 2008, SRB Documentary, LLC, 585 West 500 South #110, Bountiful, UT 84010; It is beyond debate that 50 million American abortions since Roe v. Wade have thrown actuarial assumptions about Social Security, Medicare and public and private pensions into chaos.

21 United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (December 2010). "The debt to the penny and who holds it". TreasuryDirect. Retrieved March 2, 2011.

22 Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”