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.