Saturday, June 10, 2006

Dobson defines marriage

I just watched James Dobson plugging his new book Marriage Under Fire : Why We Must Win This Battle on the FoxNews program Hannity and Colmes. Apparently his main purpose is to keep homosexual activists from redefining marriage. Dobson said:
Most importantly, the next generation depends on strong families. Children do best when there is a mother and a father. ... Boys get something from their fathers that they cannot get from their mothers. Mothers cannot be fathers and fathers can't be mothers.
Colmes tried to trick Dobson into saying that Bush had flip-flopped because he once said that same-sex marriage was up to the states. But all the states have decided against same-sex marriage whenever they've had a chance to vote on it. The federal marriage amendment is an attempt to allow the states to enforce their wishes.

The real problem with Dobson's position is that he opposed shared parenting for divorced parents. I agree with him that children do best when there is a mother and a father, but that is also true about children with divorced parents. I think that it is very strange that he will make such a big issue about the importance of mothers and fathers, and then downplay fathers in family court.

Maggie Gallagher is perhaps the other leading defender of traditional opposite-sex marriage, but I am told that she also promotes mother custody in divorces.

The importance of mothers and fathers has been thought to be obvious for thousands of years, and yet it is hard to find someone who is willing to stand up and defend it.

No comments: