Join Mailing List

Marriage Background

Overview Of The Dangers Of Legalizing Same-Sex 'Marriage'

(More detailed information can be found at the end of this article or by clicking here)

Summary of the Current Situation

The strength of our society is directly correlated to the integrity and strength of the institutions of marriage and the natural family. Yet, today these critical institutions are under increasing assault. One of the emerging threats is the effort by homosexual activists and their allies to legalize same-sex "marriage."

They have filed lawsuits in a number of states, hoping to get state courts to hand down decision legalizing same-sex "marriage." One of these, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued such a ruling in November of 2003, giving the legislature six months to implement same-sex "marriage." It became legal in the commonwealth in May, 2004 and since then several thousands same-sex couples have been married.

Courts in several other states, notably Washington, are expected to rule within the next year. If one of these other state courts also imposes legalized same-sex "marriage," the homosexual activists will use a provision of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to try to force ALL states to recognized the legality of these same-sex "marriage." The target will be the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage for federal law purposes as only the union of a man and a woman. It also has a provision that no state will be required to recognize same-sex "marriages" from another state. It is this latter provision that will be the target of these lawsuits.

Even though Massachusetts has had legalized same-sex "marriage" since 2003, it also has a law that prohibits marrying anyone who could not legally marry in their state of residence. This has prevented residents from other states from marrying in Massachusetts and then returning to their state of residence and filing suit against the laws in their states prohibiting same-sex "marriage" and/or the federal DOMA.

Polls show that a substantial majority of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage." A Gallop poll taken in May, 2006, for example, found 58 percent opposed to legalizing same-sex "marriage" and only 39 percent supporting it. In the face of this strong public opposition, allowing a few liberal activist state court judges to issue a ruling that could force this majority of Americans to accept something as significant as this against their wishes raises serious and disturbing questions of fairness and equity. The only sure way to protect this majority of Americans is to amend the Constitution to prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause from applying to marriage. Defend Marriage and other groups have been campaigning to do this.

Amending the constitution is not easy. A proposed amendment first requires passage by a two-thirds majority vote by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then, it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states before the constitution is amended. But, this issue is so critical to defending marriage and the family that it must be done and Defend Marriage is devoting most of its resources to supporting this amendment effort.

Such a federal amendment has been considered twice in the Senate, 2004 and 2006, and once in the House in 2004. In the Senate, amendment proponents have twice failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster against the amendment and allow the Senate to actually vote on it. In the House, the amendment passed with a comfortable majority but less than the two thirds vote required to send it on to the Senate.

In the meantime, a total of 27 states have amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex "marriage." Pro-marriage forces have been successful in each of these contests.

An additional 25 states have either passed state DOMA legislation in the last few years or already had laws that ban same-sex "marriage." Only four states have no such law: New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, of course is the only state which allows same-sex "marriage."

California’s legislature passed a same-sex "marriage" bill in 2005, but it was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was designed to set up a court test over the applicability of Proposition 22, passed overwhelmingly by the voters of California in 2000 as a ballot initiative, that defines marriage as only the union of a man and a woman.

Summary of the Issue

Traditional marriage in the United States is under serious assault on several fronts, with serious implications for our society. Millennia of experience over many different societies and cultures have demonstrated time and again that a society is only as strong as the families that form its basic unit. The family is important because it has been proven to be the best institution to instill in the rising generation the traits and qualities that are essential for a vibrant, resilient and healthy society.

Strong support for the traditional institution of marriage has always been essential to protecting and promoting strong families. One of the emerging threats to traditional marriage is the effort by homosexual and lesbian activists and their allies in the media, government and the entertainment industry to create public acceptance of same-sex "marriage" and to force its legal recognition. If they are successful, they will seriously weaken the traditional institution of marriage and, inevitably, the natural family. Anything that weakens the family weakens society.

Some basic facts can put into proper perspective the debate over the various demands homosexuals are making. Less than 3 percent of males in America are homosexual. Research shows that homosexuals are not "born that way." Rather, homosexuality is caused almost exclusively by environmental factors. With therapy it is possible for a homosexual to change to a heterosexual orientation. Census figures show that less than 1 percent of households are composed of same sex couples and only a fraction of these would likely be interested in "marrying" even if they legally could.

Because homosexuality is defined entirely by sexual behavior, the courts have consistently held that homosexuals are not entitled to any special rights. Thus there are no legal "rights" for homosexuals to marry or to have any of the other special "rights" they demand. As Americans, their fundamental civil rights are already protected just as are those of heterosexual Americans.

All of the benefits of legalizing same-sex "marriage" accrue to a very tiny percentage of society. On the other side of the equation, the identifiable impacts on the vast majority of the members of our society all would be harmful and profound. Perhaps the most significant of these impacts include "cheapening" the current ideal of marriage and the family, with all the negative impacts that would have for these critical institutions and for our future.

There would also be a number of indirect social costs. For example, legitimizing same sex marriage would make it more difficult for those states that currently prohibit same-sex couples from adopting children to do so, even though studies show these children suffer much higher abuse rates and other problems than children in more traditional situations.

The true goal of homosexual activists in trying to legalize same sex marriage is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle. Since environmental factors are the primary determinant in whether an individual becomes homosexual, the more legitimate homosexuality appears to be, the more homosexuals there will be.

Compared to the general population the homosexual lifestyle is characterized by much higher incidences of serious and fatal diseases, general health problems, mental illness, substance abuse and addiction, and physical abuse by partners. Some of the results of legitimizing homosexuality could be particularly sinister. Although homosexuals currently represent only 3 percent of the population, they are involved in 33 percent of the pedophilia cases.

The "bottom line" is that legalizing same-sex "marriage" would impose huge social and economic costs on society with no benefits. This is a step society cannot and should not take.

A more detailed discussion of these points is presented below and in the "Frequently Asked Questions" section.

Putting the Problem into the Social Context

The effort to legalize same-sex "marriage" is only part of a larger, well-planned, well-coordinated, well-funded and, unfortunately, rather successful campaign of deception, disinformation and desensitization by homosexual activists and their allies. Their ultimate goal goes far beyond merely getting the majority of Americans to tolerate homosexuality. Rather, their goal is to achieve validation of this lifestyle through the acceptance by the majority of Americans that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality.

In fact, it is not healthy or normal, either for the individual or for society. From a mental and physical health perspective, homosexuality is a high-risk, unhealthy lifestyle. Following such a lifestyle imposes a variety of economic costs on society. However, these costs are insignificant compared to the potential social costs of accepting homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle.

Because it fundamentally alters society's ideal of marriage, recognizing same-sex "marriage" would have profound implications for our society, none of them positive or beneficial. Most damaging, it would fundamentally change society's perception of the ideal of marriage and the family. This ideal, if not always the reality, now is of biological children of a husband and wife being born into and raised in a long term, monogamous, loving and nurturing marriage which is reinforced by a variety of legal protections and requirements.

Altering this present ideal concept of marriage to include same-sex pairings merely for reasons of personal benefit and convenience inevitably would alter the way men and women, and most importantly the rising generation, would regard marriage and essential role it should play in supporting natural families. It would clearly "cheapen" this special institution that is so important to the future of any society.

In addition, there would be a number of other significant indirect social costs. One would be that legalization of same-sex "marriage" would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from legally adopting children in those states where it is now prohibited. 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.

Another significant social cost would be that anything that legitimizes homosexuality would result in more people taking up the homosexual lifestyle. Research has shown that homosexuals are not "born that way," that this condition is not dictated by genetics. Whether an individual becomes a homosexual is determined almost exclusively by environmental factors. The more legitimate homosexuality appears to be, the more likely that vulnerable individuals will become homosexual.

In addition to the social implications, homosexuals engage in behavior that is destructive to themselves and to society as a whole. Their behavior is associated with a number of serious health risks, including HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Half of all men who engage in sex with other men will become HIV positive or contract another potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease. Homosexuals also 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.

An increase in the homosexual population clearly would result in significant increased human costs as well as higher economic and social costs. With these myriad identifiable social costs and individual mental and physical health problems so clearly identified with homosexuality, anything that encourages more individuals to accept this lifestyle must be a matter of concern to society as a whole.

Too frequently the debate over legalizing same sex "marriage" and other demands by homosexuals presumes that they have rights which are either not being recognized or are being violated. However, because homosexuality is not an innate condition, but rather is defined exclusively by sexual behavior, federal courts have consistently held that homosexuals as a group are not eligible for constitutional civil rights protections. Unlike other minorities, it is also possible for homosexuals to change their sexual orientation. With therapy and enough individual motivation, homosexuals can lead normal, heterosexual lives. Consequently, there is no "right" of homosexuals to marry. As Americans, they have the same rights and protections as every other American. What they are demanding by trying to legalize same-sex "marriage" and in other areas, are special rights based solely on sexual behavior.

The primary, though usually unstated, goal of homosexual activists in trying to legalize same-sex "marriage" is to further their campaign to validate and legitimize homosexuality. Commonly, however, they try to frame the debate around other claimed benefits, including putting same-sex couples on a par with traditional marriage partners for a range of benefits including health coverage, inheritance, hospital visitation rights and others.

But even heterosexuals who might be sympathetic to the complaints of homosexual couples about the practical problems they might face because they cannot legally marry must keep these "problems" in perspective. The most recent census shows that less than 1 percentof households in this country are composed of same-sex people. By contrast, a little over 8 percent of households in the U.S. are composed of unmarried heterosexual couples. Just as these heterosexual couples, for whatever reasons, are living together without marrying even though presumably most of them could do so, some percentage of couples in same-sex households also presumably would not marry even if they legally could do so.

The tradeoff for our society, then, in legalizing same-sex "marriage," would be tremendously unfair and one sided. All of the identifiable benefits would accrue to a very tiny percentage of society exclusively for their personal convenience and to satisfy their personal desires. On the other hand, there would be no benefits to the vast majority of the members of society to offset what would be clear, identifiable, harmful and profound costs to them and to society as a whole.

This outcome is clearly unacceptable to society and to the majority of Americans. But only a strong defense of marriage and the family by that majority of Americans will prevent it from happening.

Related Information

Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement

Constitutionality of Legal Preferences For Heterosexual Marriage

Frequently Asked Questions

Response to Salt Lake Tribune