By Dr. Mark H. Creech
Christian Action League
I walked into the Hallmark shop to buy a Mother’s Day card. With the number of people inside, it was apparent big companies have capitalized on Mom’s special day to make millions. However, it wasn’t always that way.
“According to the Website www.123Holiday.net:
In the United States, Mother’s Day started nearly 150 years ago, When Anna Jarvis, an Appalachian homemaker, organized a day to raise awareness of poor health conditions in her community, a cause she believed would be best advocated by mothers. She called it “Mother’s Work Day”…
In 1905 when Anna Jarvis died, her daughter, also named Anna, began a campaign to memorialize the life work of her mother. Legend has it that young Anna remembered a Sunday School lesson that her mother gave in which she said, “I hope and pray that someone, sometime, will found a memorial mother’s day. There are many days for men, but none for mothers.
Anna began to lobby prominent business men like John Wannamaker, and politicians including Presidents Taft and Roosevelt to support her campaign to create a special day to honor mothers. At one of the first services organized to celebrate Anna’s mother in 1908, at her church in West Virginia, Anna handed out her mother’s favorite flower, the white carnation. Five years later, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for officials of the federal government to wear white carnations on Mother’s Day. In 1914 Anna’s hard work paid off when Woodrow Wilson signed a bill recognizing Mother’s Day as a national holiday.” 
Interestingly, Jarvis eventually became disgruntled with all the commercialization of the day. She even filed a lawsuit trying to have the day removed from the calendar.
But despite its commercialization, who can deny that mother’s deserve supreme recognition? Who can deny the truth of William Ross Wallace’s statement, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”? Who can deny that mothers’ have a unique roll with every child that only she can possibly fill?
I’ll tell you who can deny it – the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
On Wednesday of last week, the President declared his support for same sex marriage, saying, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Some of the President’s policies, such as his refusal to direct the Department of Justice to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, already indicated his lack of support for traditional marriage. But it’s clear now that the President just avowed himself to be the worst enemy of traditional marriage in the country.
Furthermore, by his support for same-gender marriage, the President has indirectly declared his belief that motherhood for children is optional because same-sex parenting always denies a child of one biological parent. Certainly homosexual fathers raising children together would agree with the President that motherhood is optional. But God doesn’t agree. His plan, which is written into the very laws of nature say both a mother and a father are relevant to parenthood.
Is the President earnest in suggesting that two men can take the place of a mother’s love? Is he honestly implying that two men man can teach a young girl just as effectively as a mother what it means to be female? Does he really mean to say that two men are just as capable as an experienced mother in assisting and counseling a daughter through her first menstrual cycle? This is to say nothing of all the ways that mothers are unique and special to boys. But seriously? Does the President want us to believe gender and motherhood are so irrelevant?
I have known many good men in my day. And many good men make for great Dads. But I have yet to meet one good man that could really make a good Mom.
It is well-known that gay relationships are rarely monogamous or long-term. In fact, even in those homosexual relationships where partners consider themselves “committed,” the meaning of the word usually refers to something much different than what most people associate with the term. So-called “committed” homosexual relationships typically allow for multiple partners. Moreover, it’s conservative to say that the average length of a homosexual relationship is less than three years.
Has the President thought about what homosexual divorces that include children would mean? Perhaps he has and I have it all wrong. Maybe he really does value motherhood. He values it so much he envisions the day when a child could end up with not just two Moms, but four, six, or even more. A new husband a generation from now could have several mother-in-laws. As much as I value motherhood, however, the potential of such a scenario is truly unsettling.
On Mother’s Day we celebrate motherhood. What an incredible and necessary institution.
Anna Jarvis was right, motherhood is priceless.
Too bad the President’s support for gay marriage cheapens it.
 Nelson’s Preacher’s Sourcebook, Dr. Kent Span & Dr. David Wheeler, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2010.