In a recent column, Dan Rodricks ("The absurd arguments against same-sex marriage," Feb. 2) failed to interact with the actual points I made in my testimony against redefining marriage in Maryland.
I pointed out that "the law is a teacher" and predicted that "birth rates would fall" because "[w]e would teach that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest." Mr. Rodricks responds that "gay and lesbian couples have found ways of having babies." This says nothing about whether we would maintain a "replacement rate," or plunge into demographic crisis, like we see in Japan and many European countries.
I also argued that "fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father" because we would teach that having both is unnecessary. Mr. Rodricks responds by saying many children are already raised within other family structures. Yet the question is not what family structures exist, but which is optimal. Social science research shows children do best when raised by their biological mother and father who are married to one another.
As for fatherlessness, Mr. Rodricks implies that children raised by lesbian couples still have a father. This is true — but they are intentionally deprived of his presence. On the other hand, a child can have only one biological father even if raised by two homosexual men.
The necessity of a biological mother and father for the life of every person is the immutable reality advocates of homosexual "marriage" cannot deny. Instead, they dismiss its significance — or in Mr. Rodricks' case, ignore it altogether.
Peter Sprigg, Germantown
The writer is a senior fellow for policy studies with the Family Research Council.