Issue Topics

Traditional Family - A Foundation for Freedom

Friday, 12/21/2007

No amount of government involvement can make up for the destruction of the American family. Since the founding of our nation, the primary source of our citizens’ strength has come from the family. The family provides us with the fortitude to endure the loss of a loved one, the wisdom to become stewards of the community, and the knowledge to develop lifelong skills. The traditional family – guided by one man and one woman – provides the nurturing environment that our children need to learn core values. As Congressman, I intend to defend the foundation on which this country was built and to recognize that the vitality of the traditional family is a core component to our nation’s status as the worldwide symbol of freedom and prosperity. The United States Constitution should recognize that marriage is firmly and solely between a man and a woman. While I respect the rights of those who disagree to voice their dissent, it is my fervent belief that our children benefit from the dynamic influence offered by a mother and a father. The marriage amendment is consistent with the enduring principle of federalism – the division of power between the states and the federal government. Unlike certain areas of public policy, marriage does not lend itself to state-by-state experimentation where the effects of a ruling by one judge in a particular jurisdiction can be felt in distant communities with entirely different values. We must recognize as a federal government that, quite simply, marriage is a unique and fundamental social contract. I would not attempt to federalize the entirety of marriage policy. To be sure, legislative judgments concerning divorce law and child custody or visitation should remain with the states. But the recognition of marriage as a traditional and enduring institution is appropriate and principled federal policy. In recognition of government’s obligation to promote traditional family values, I firmly oppose any effort to reinstate the “marriage penalty” in the income tax code. The tax relief provided to America’s working couples under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2010, and it must be made permanent. The tax code should never contain inequitable provisions which treat married persons differently than others. I opposed the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation which was vetoed by President Bush. The primary objection to this proposal is that it does not cover just children (coverage extends up to 25 years old) and not just the poor (coverage extends up to the $80,000 income level). Under proposed SCHIP language, more children would be eligible to receive contraception without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Medicaid rules do not allow the sharing of information without the patient’s consent – regardless of that patient’s age. Taxpayer-funded contraception, without any parental notification or involvement in the decision, intrudes on the sanctity of the family and weakens the very bond between parent and child.