Fatherlessness is an epidemic, and the children are not all right. The National Fatherhood Initiative clarifies this sobering reality: “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America — one out of three — live without their biological father in the home … And no other single factor hurts children more than father absence.”

When confronted with the sobering outcomes of fatherless homes in the lives of children, we express outrage. After all, we intuitively know that fathers matter.

As adults, what is our responsibility to our children? Children are the most vulnerable among us. They require our care, protection, and provision in order to survive and thrive in the world.

But the way things are is not the way they ought to be. And there is a movement afoot which is exacerbating this critical issue, with children who are getting caught in the middle.

If we truly care about the fatherlessness epidemic, why — by virtue of our concerted effort to normalize same-sex marriages — do we essentially seek to render fathers irrelevant in the family equation? And mothers, too, for that matter?

As I’ve watched the adults in the room haggle over the freedom to live as they see fit, I’ve often reflected, “I wonder what the kids think about all of this?”

Grace Evans, age 11, gave us a glimpse back in 2013 when she testified before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law. During her testimony she thoughtfully posed the illuminating question, “Which parent do I not need — my mom or my dad?”

Grace understood what the metrics about fatherlessness repeatedly confirm. The ideal scenario for a child’s well-being is to be raised in a home with both biological parents present.

In our fractured world, however, the real is not always the ideal. Death, divorce and abandonment wreak havoc in families. And parents and guardians are valiantly striving against seemingly insurmountable challenges in rearing their children. So too, many gay and lesbian couples in our communities are showing tremendous love toward the children in their home.

But the ideal scenario of a committed father and mother in the home remains the optimal catalyst for the possibility of a child’s flourishing future. Why then would we codify into law familial arrangements that proactively affirm fatherlessness?

Should we not be pursuing the ideal whenever possible? Instead, we are seeking to enshrine civil rights for the adults at the expense of the children.

The fact is, children have no choice about the life situation into which they are born. They have no leverage to be able to chart their own course in life during their formative years. The responsibility falls on the adults to be their voice, their advocate.

The oft-repeated “rights for all” slogan carries with it broader implications which extend beyond its intended scope. If we truly believe that there should, in fact, be rights for all, does that include the rights of the children we bring into this world?

Shouldn’t children have the right to have a mother and a father from the outset of life? If not, why not? And what, if anything, might be willing to give up for the sake of our children in order to provide them that environment?

The duty of our elected leaders is, in fact, to lead. Rather than following the popular cultural trends, or giving way to those special-interest groups that exert the most pressure, it is incumbent upon our leaders to stand firm in protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Children are our most important citizens, whether or not they can cast a ballot. Let’s advocate for them.

Originally posted by The Indianapolis Star.