Join Mailing List

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the problem?

Homosexual activists and their liberal allies are demanding that same-sex unions be recognized as legal marriages. Lawsuits to force this recognition have been filed in a number of states and judges in Massachusetts have imposed same-sex "marriage" on that state. The problem arises because of a provision of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. This provision provides that judicial and legislative acts in one state shall be recognized as legal (i.e., given "Full Faith and Credit") in any other state. The result might be that under this provision, all states would be required to recognize the legality of same-sex "marriages" if even one state did so.

Homosexual activists admit that this is exactly their strategy and why they have filed suits in these liberal states. This despite the fact that solid majorities nationwide oppose legalizing same-sex "marriage" and even higher majorities oppose it in many states. Massachusetts has a law that prohibits non-residents from being married in that state if the marriage would not be permitted in their home states.

So how can the forced recognition of same-sex "marriages" be prevented?

The only way to guarantee that the Full Faith and Credit clause would not require all states to recognize same-sex "marriage" if even on state does is to amend the U.S. Constitution.

An amendment to do that, has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate and has been considered in 2004 and 2006. It has not yet passed. Defend Marriage strongly supports this amendment.

How is the Constitution amended?

There are two ways. Amendments may be proposed at a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states or by a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. The Constitution is amended when three-fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendment. This latter mechanism is the one being pursued by supporters of the marriage amendment.

Why does the legalization ofsame-sex "marriage" pose serious threats?

Marriage has been understood and transmitted down through the centuries and across civilizations as a man married to a woman. It has been proven to be the best institution in which to provide for the continuance of life, to protect and provide for children and to train them to be good citizens and responsible members of society.

Governments and society have uniformly granted benefits and protections to men and women in marriage because of their biological potential to bear and effectively raise the next generation. Since homosexual relationships are based entirely on "feelings" and a particular type of sexual activity, rather than on producing and nurturing the next generation, legalizing same-sex "marriages" would create a new standard by which a "right" to marry would be recognized. This would then open the door to any kind of "marriage" which met this standard, such as letting any number of people "marry" each other, allowing close blood relatives to "marry," permitting adults to "marry" children and so on.

One of the biggest threats to legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children. Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex "families" is many times higher than in traditional families and that children in homosexual families are more likely to suffer emotional problems.

Research on a broad range of problems in our society are underscoring the importance of stable families, with a father and mother present in the home, as the most reliable way to produce responsible and contributing adults. Society, the natural family and the future of the nation would clearly be hurt by any deviation from the traditional concept of marriage, such as legalizing same-sex "marriage." 

Why do same-sex couples want to marry?

Motivations vary widely, of course, and there is no doubt that some same-sex couples form strong emotional attachments and want to "marry" as an expression of that attachment. However, the primary reason homosexual activists are pushing to legalize same-sex "marriage" is because it would constitute legal recognition of their sexual behavior and legitimize it as an acceptable alternative to normal heterosexual marriage, both to themselves and to society as a whole.

Many people also equate anything that is legal as also being moral. Homosexual activists know that legalizing same-sex "marriage" would serve to undermine the moral objections that millions of Americans have to homosexual behavior.

By refusing to allow them to marry, aren't homosexuals being denied equal rights?

No! They have the same fundamental rights as all other Americans. What they are demanding is special rights based on their sexual behavior. Homosexuals frequently complain that they are being denied basic civil rights under the U.S. Constitution and try to align themselves with racial and ethnic minorities who have, in fact, been denied their civil rights as Americans.

The courts consistently have only recognized legal minority status in connection with denial of civil rights for groups that meet three criteria: 1) there is a history of discrimination against the group; 2) members of the group are powerless to help themselves in a way to avoid the discriminatory actions and; 3) they are defined by immutable characteristics, such as race or national origin. Homosexuals fail two of these tests.

But aren't people born either homosexual or heterosexual and powerless to do anything about it?

Absolutely not. This is a myth. The key component of the homosexual activists' political strategy to legitimize homosexuality is their insistence that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. Only if they can make this case can they hope to get the courts to recognize them as a minority being discriminated against. To do that, they have to try to transform this myth into "fact." They have not been successful with the courts or the scientific community. But, aided by the entertainment industry and the liberal media, they are making steady progress with the public, which increasingly believes that homosexuals are somehow programmed to this behavior.

Homosexual activists must bear the burden of proof that homosexuality is something one is born into. There is clear evidence that people are not born homosexual. For example, studies of identical twins have found that when one twin is homosexual, the likelihood of the other twin also being homosexual is only 50 percent or less. If homosexuals were "born" that way, the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins would be 100 percent since they share exactly the same genetic material. Homosexuality, therefore, fails the courts' immutability test.

It is also increasingly clear that people with homosexual impulses can be redirected to normal heterosexual orientation. Numerous case studies prove that there are effective therapies to achieve this if the individual truly wants to change. Homosexuality, therefore, also fails the second test -- that homosexuals cannot help themselves.

Homosexuality is a symptom of a developmental disorder. The causes of this disorder are complex and not completely understood, but there is substantial and credible evidence that the environment in which a child is reared is a significant contributor.

Since environment is such an important contributor to homosexual orientation, anything that appears to legitimize it will result in a higher likelihood that more individuals will become homosexual. Prevention, early intervention and treatment for homosexual behavior, while not 100 percent effective, often does work. Such efforts to prevent homosexual orientation are most effective when this disorder is identified for what it is, a disorder, and not just an equally acceptable alternative sexual orientation and lifestyle. That is just one additional reason why the legalization of same-sex "marriage" and the resulting apparent legitimacy it would bring to homosexual behavior is so damaging to society and to the individuals who could be helped.

Aren't homosexuals basically like heterosexuals except for their sexual orientation?

No. As a class, homosexuals engage in behavior that is destructive both to the individuals and to society as a whole. Homosexual behavior is associated with a number of serious health risks, including HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Half of men who engage in sex with other men will become HIV positive or contract another potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.

Homosexuals suffer high incidences of other, non-fatal, diseases and health problems and physical violence from their partners. About 30 percent of homosexually active men and women have serious drug and alcohol problems, much higher than the general population. They also suffer a much higher incidence of mental illnesses.

There are other costs to society as well. Homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the sexual abuse of children. While less than 3 percent of the population is homosexual, 33 percent of all pedophilia cases involve homosexuals.

So how should homosexuals be treated?

Defend Marriage calls on all Americans to join in condemning verbal abuse, violence or any type of harassment against homosexuals. We should all offer compassion and assistance to homosexuals who seek to change their destructive behavior. All responsible citizens must adopt a similar position and work to create a compassionate society and protect the physical safety of homosexuals.

However, we also unequivocally state that homosexual behavior and the social agenda of homosexual activists is dangerous to our culture, to our health and to the future of civilization. It must be opposed by all who understand how important protecting marriage and the family are to our nation and to the viability of the society we will pass on to future generations.