Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: The average person must care about what his or her government says and does regarding family at the UN because international law, formulated by UN processes, now has significant impact on the policies implemented by intergovernmental organizations—and by national governments.

Richard has written a very short description of how and why international law “matters.” We will send you a copy of the essay—“How International Law Controls Domestic Law”—with all the footnotes.

We have two documents we can send you that answer the questions “why international law matters” and “what concrete actions the UN has taken that raise questions about the family.” The first is a short essay, “How International Law Controls Domestic Law,” and another on “Deconstruction and Hope,” which examines how the UN has “deconstructed” or taken apart the family.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: To begin with, many of the goals of CEDAW are admirable. CEDAW seeks to improve women’s political participation in society, education, and access to health care. These are laudable goals. However, in the pursuit of these goals, the CEDAW Committee sometimes takes extreme positions, refusing, for example, to recognize that there are or may be differences in the needs and roles of women.

The Committee, accordingly, calls motherhood a “harmful traditional stereotype,” and urges nations to take “all necessary action” to “eradicate” this “stereotype.” Now, there are many things that can and should be done to improve the status of women in modern society. But it hardly furthers the legitimate needs of women to assert that motherhood is a “harmful” stereotype.

Moreover, in the quest for “equality” the CEDAW Committee often attempts to make women “equal” to men in ways beyond the merely political and social. Women should have equal access to education; women and men are “equal” in this regard. But, the biological fact that men do not bear children does not suggest that abortion is a “fundamental right” simply because that is the only way to make the woman’s role in childbearing “equal” to that of the man’s. In these, and in other areas related to family life, national laws—and international policy—should recognize that “strict equality” may actually harm women (and the children they bear).

To take one example from US law that is now being used internationally, women are no longer entitled to automatic alimony payments upon divorce. Why? Because “women are equal to men and, therefore, a woman can work to support herself after divorce.” But, because women often have closer and more burdensome relations with their children, this rule has resulted in the impoverishment of divorced American women and their children. Today, 30 years after women achieved “equality in divorce,” divorced American women and their children are in worse condition—and poorer—than at any time in our nation’s history. The CEDAW Committee’s consistent emphasis on “strict equality” for women can actually harm women. Women, in many respects, are NOT “just like men.” The law should be able to recognize this reality and act to protect and advance the interests of women, and children.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that CEDAW may have a significant impact on all countries, whether or not a country has ratified the treaty. The US Supreme Court, two weeks ago, cited a UN treaty that the United States has NOT ratified as “controlling” in an important case. If American law is now governed by treaties that America did not ratify, we assure you that all nations around the world are similarly vulnerable.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: I (Richard Wilkins) first realized the similarity when I attended the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul in May and June of 1996. There, I saw Western feminist scholars advocating positions that not only contravened my religious beliefs, but that flew in the face of the common experience of mankind and current sociological insight. I found that very few Western scholars attending the conference held the same beliefs. But as I discussed the important issues addressed by the Habitat II assembly with various national delegations and NGO representatives from around the world, I found that my beliefs and understandings were rather precisely mirrored by those who followed the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (and, I hope I am not inappropriate, I add peace be upon him).

From that point on, and to this very day, I have worked to increase understanding between the Christian and Muslim worlds. There is a vast amount of misunderstanding between the two cultures and religions, but a vast amount of (generally unrecognized) agreement on fundamental values—particularly those related to marriage, motherhood, fatherhood, childbearing, and family. I believe that there is a profound need for Christian and Muslim scholars, Christian and Muslim NGOs, and Christian and Muslim citizens to work together to promote a healthy, sustainable family culture for our nations and the entire world. As we work together on this important effort, we can develop a true “culture of peace”—a goal that is a stated goal of the United Nations and the goal of Christianity and Islam.

In today’s world (and certainly all too often in the headlines), it looks like Christianity and Islam are “at odds.” I firmly believe this is not the case. True Christians and true Muslims can and will live together in perfect peace. The hope of the World Family Policy Center is that, by working together to improve the world’s families, true progress toward sustainable, peaceful societies will be achieved. True Christianity and true Islam are not enemies; rather, our opponents are those who would deny the fundamental natures of men and women and advance an ideology of the “self” and self-gratification.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: First of all, we would like to state that it is not the “right wing” of US society that is working with Muslim countries. The broad “middle” of America is opposed to abortion on demand, and is opposed to changing the definition of marriage, and certainly opposed to the idea that motherhood is a “harmful traditional stereotype.” So, there is a far broader segment of American society that will work with Muslim nations than just the “right wing.”

Second, there is widespread misunderstanding of what happened at the Beijing +10 Conference. The United States proposed inserting into the final declaration an express statement that the Beijing Platform did not create a right to abortion. In a very real sense, this was unnecessary because the Beijing Platform itself states that it does not create any new human rights—and many nations made express reservations to the Platform stating their views that the Platform did not address the question of abortion. Therefore, many nations at Beijing +10 did not support the US proposal on the simple ground that it was not needed; in their view, the Beijing Platform did not create a right to abortion and there was accordingly no need for further discussion of that topic.

We believe that this was the view taken by many countries, including most Muslim countries. As a result, this action does not suggest that Muslim countries will not work together with the United States and other nations on questions related to fundamental family values.

Finally, the Doha International Conference for the Family, which was one of the culminating events of the UN’s celebration of the 2004 International Year of the Family, was a remarkable example of cooperation between Western countries (including the United States) and the Muslim world. The Doha Declaration, which was noted by the General Assembly on December 6, 2004, reaffirms important fundamental understandings related to the family and family life. This document was sponsored by over 140 nations on December 6. This important, broad-based reaffirmation of fundamental family values suggests that there is indeed good reason to believe that the United States and Muslim countries can and will work together in the future to support and protect shared values.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: The most important achievement of the Doha Conference is the Doha Declaration, and the extensive world-wide scholarship supporting the declaration. The Doha Declaration reaffirms basic, fundamental understandings related to the family and family life (as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other foundational UN documents) that have not been given any attention or examination for over three decades. The Doha Declaration puts the idea of the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 16(3)) “back on the negotiating table.” It does so, moreover, as a result of a year-long series of meetings attended by hundreds of government representatives, hundreds of scholars, and thousands of members of civil society.

We are now editing two major volumes of scholarship, entitled The Family in the Third Millennium. These volumes, encompassing more than 1,200 pages of significant scholarship from academicians and leaders from every region of the globe, support and amplify the normative statements of the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration and its supporting scholarship demonstrate that there is a world-wide shared commitment to the natural family. The year-long, interlocking processes of the Doha Conference demonstrated that diverse nations, cultures, and religions understand the importance of the natural family and are eager to work together to promote and protect it.

The Doha International Conference for the Family was not “perfect,” but no human effort is ever perfect. But the Doha Conference began a much-needed collaboration by nations around the world who are committed to promoting and protecting the natural family. The world community owes a profound debt of gratitude to Her Highness Sheikha Mouzah bint Nasser Al-Misnad, Consort of His Highness the Emir of Qatar, and President of the Supreme Council for Family Affairs of the State of Qatar, for her foresight and energy in establishing the processes of the Doha Conference and in supporting it to its conclusion. Her Highness, at the concluding session of the conference in Qatar on November 30, 2004, announced that she would establish an international center to study the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” (Universal Declaration) and promote policies to strengthen and support it. Accordingly, it may well be that the most “significant achievement” of the Doha International Conference for the Family is yet to be seen. The international center announced by Her Highness could have a profound—and much-needed—role in strengthening the family and, by so doing, promoting a culture of peace. This, I believe, may well be the lasting legacy of Doha.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: The World Family Policy Center is eager to support and assist the efforts of Her Highness in establishing the international institute for the study of the family. The role of the center, if any, will be determined by Her Highness. Both of us, however, would be delighted to assist in any way we can. We do not know, at this time, what efforts will be made to sponsor and promote research in developing countries. The mission of the Doha institute would include these efforts, and we believe that Her Highness will make every possible effort to insure the success of the institute (including the completion of research in developing countries).

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: We believe that the international family effort is just beginning. There has, indeed, been a lot of movement away from the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” However, this has occurred precisely because there were few (if any) contrary voices or opinions being expressed. In the past seven years, we have seen significant achievements to promote the values of life and family in the international arena. The Doha Conference, to take but the most recent example, demonstrates a world-wide commitment to the natural family. Therefore, we must simply keep on working. It is possible to “turn things around.” The best sociological evidence available supports the natural family. History and experience suggest that normalizing and promoting homosexual conduct has serious negative consequences. And, to this very moment in time, too few “ordinary people” understand what is “at stake” in this important international debate. As more ordinary citizens get involved, as more research is conducted, as more nations hear the actual views of their citizens, we can “turn this around.” Seven years ago, I would have never believed that more than 140 nations would support a statement like the Doha Declaration. But it happened. Why? Because one courageous nation, Qatar, took a stand and the world rallied around. This is all that is needed now: a little courage, work by scholars, dedication of NGOs, and the support and prayers of ordinary people. There are groups from diverse religious and cultures now attending the UNHCHR meeting in Geneva. These groups will do their best to insure that the Human Rights Commission does not adopt troublesome norms. We have a lot of hope. When the people speak, nations—and the world—will listen.

Drs. Wilkins and Loveless: Thank you so very much for this opportunity. We are grateful for the work of so many of our Muslim brothers and sisters to promote and protect the natural family. Dr. Loveless and I hope to have the opportunity to work with—and meet—many of you in the coming years.