In "Children Need Mothers and Fathers," printed in the August 4, 2003 issue of The Weekly Standard, Maggie Gallagher says that it would be irresponsible to change the definition and core beliefs of marriage to accommodate the sexual desires of a few adults. Gallagher believes that gay marriage should not be allowed because it would change the popular definition of marriage and result in the decomposition of the institution. She believes that without a standard cultural definition, there will be no incentive/pressure to stay married; marriage will no longer be the accepted context for raising children. The reason that the institution of marriage is so important, Gallagher says, is that children do better in households with two married, biological parents.
Gallagher recognizes other's view, that same sex marriage has no bearing on traditional marriage. She says that some people believe that marriage simply grants gay couples recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of the law and the public. Gallagher however, refutes the idea of marriage as a way to legitimize love. She believes that marriage is a way of holding up a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal so that children have "loving and committed mothers and fathers" (2).
Gallagher states that when the ideal marriage is not supported by law and culture, society begins to break down. She says that a strong social ideal for marriage will allow children have the mom and dad they "need and deserve," and that redefining marriage to include gays would threaten its core purpose: to provide parents for children (3).
Gallagher uses a combination of logical and emotional appeals throughout her essay. Unfortunately, her emotional appeals often make large assumptions about the reader's background, and the logical appeals seem outdated or, in some cases, utterly illogical. Personally, I have a hard time swallowing some of her rightwing rhetoric, and frankly find some of what she says highly offensive.
