What is marriage? Back in 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good definition. To be fair, the larger context was her speaking against the idea of a federal marriage amendment, but in the course of her speech she resolutely defended the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.
She later sounded quite conservative in warning about the consequences of what we might call non-traditional family situations.
Mrs. Clinton even defended the rights of the states to define marriage as they see fit.
Several years earlier, President Bill Clinton waxed eloquent about the significance of liberty of conscience as he he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
As Clinton explained, he was eager to sign the legislation so that the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith might be reversed and a better standard established for protecting the free exercise of religion.
Clinton argued that there was an unhealthy “climate in this country” in which people were embarrassed to admit their actions were motivated “by their faith” and by “what they discern to be. . . . the will of God.” After observing that “the most central institution of our society, the family, has been under assault for 30 years” the President implored his audience that it was “high time we had an open and honest reaffirmation of the role of American citizens of faith.” Religion, as he saw it, belonged in the public square and the free exercise of religion deserved the strongest protections under the law.
So to summarize from the speeches made by Senator Clinton and President Clinton:
- Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
- Marriage is a foundational institution because it exists for the raising of children.
- The presence of illegitimacy, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce negatively affect our children.
- The states have a right to define marriage as they see fit and recognize marriage according to their definition.
- The Government should be held to a very high level of proof before interfering with someone’s free exercise of religion.
- We can never be too diligent in protecting religious liberty.
- Religious believers not be ashamed to admit that their actions may be motivated by faith and by their understanding of God’s will.
- We need more religion in the public square, not less.
- We should respect other people’s faith (or lack thereof), but without running from our own convictions.
- We should fight to the death to preserve the right of every American to practice his or her convictions.
Three cheers for the Clintons–of 1993 and 2004! Are there any Democrats or Republicans or college presidents or members of the mainstream media who would dare to say the same things today? It is sobering to think that the wisdom of two millennia (which Hillary Clinton affirmed) and the Constitutional protections of two centuries (in which Bill Clinton exulted) can be cast aside as backward and bigoted just two decades later. The insanity of our time is to think that everyone else was crazy before Our Time. Maybe we have something to learn from history. Maybe there are things to learn from the past. Or maybe we are smarter and nobler than all those who have come before, including, as a prime example, the less enlightened version of our former selves.
