Taking Sides in California !
Wednesday, July 30, 2008Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues.
From: Maurine Proctor Washington, D.C
In an overt attempt to sabotage Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment, Attorney General Jerry Brown has reworded the ballot summary. The initiative that 1.1 million California voters signed and was to have appeared on the ballot read "[Proposition 8] ! amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""
With Brown's creative writing, the new ballot summary says that it "'changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." Further it claims that the state will be impacted with a potential revenue loss of several million dollars-an argument calculated to prejudice voters in these difficult economic times.
Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, told the LA Times that the new language was "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."
The LA Times also reported, "The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot. A! nd it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. "He is delivering something...that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote "no," said political analyst Tony Quinn.
That Brown panders to the gay community instead of believing he needs to take any note of those who support family is a demonstration of where the political clout lies these days. Social conservatives need to step up to the plate with money and time to support the causes they believe in.
The Protect Marriage Coalition, of which Family Leader is a member, will challenge this ballot summary next Tuesday in court. As citizens in California scramble to save marriage, a July 19th Field poll shows just how damaging this language change can be. With the reticence from the population to eliminate anyone's rights! , Prop. 8 falls behind when it is described as a measure to ban gay marriage, but pulls ahead by several points when its exact wording is known.
"This is a complete about-fact from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures," Kern said.The Wall Street Journal's John Fund has written an intriguing article called "The Far Left's War on Democray" which details how opponents use sometimes outrageous means to derail ballot initiatives. It is worth reading.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Society's Fabric Is As Strong As It's Marriages
Woven Together
Society’s fabric is as strong as its marriages.
by Jenny Tyree
The strength of any fabric — from the sheerest muslins to the sturdiest upholstery — is its pattern of tightly woven threads. Similarly, the social institution of marriage is a pattern that strengthens the fabric of families, churches, communities and countries.
The words social institution may seem like an academic way to describe what we often think of as a private, romantic relationship, but marriage has deep cultural meaning in nearly every human society. In The Future of Marriage, scholar David Blankenhorn writes that a social institution is “a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs.” Though marital customs, traditions and responsibilities vary by country and culture, Blankenhorn writes that nearly everywhere “marriage at its core is a woman and a man whose sexual union forms the basis of an important cooperative relationship.”
This “cooperative relationship” creates a framework for meeting the physical and relational needs of women, men and children in a way that is healthy for and protective of the next generation. Marriage has been so effective that other institutions, such as the government and the church, recognize and support marriage as essential to the well-being of families.
Higher purpose
Marriage has thrived cross-culturally because its purpose surpasses the meaning that any one couple, religion or government chooses to give it. A couple entering marriage willingly commit their bodies, wills and lives to each other, as well as to an established relational design for men and women.
The public vows of marriage make a clear statement to family and friends about the commitment of the spouses — that their sexuality is exclusive and their lives and worldly goods belong to one another. The vows also make an indirect statement to the community. The couple’s willingness to enter marriage indicates that they are capable of trust and duty.
The sexual aspect of marriage underscores its procreative purpose — not just the creation of a child, but the permanent bonding of the couple. The couples’ sexual bond is of critical importance, as Blankenhorn writes “so that the mother and father will stay together to raise the baby.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, emphasizes what marriage does for fathers. “When a baby is born, there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by. If we want fathers to be equally involved in their children’s lives, biology alone won’t get us very far. The word for the way cultures attach fathers to the mother-child bond in . . . virtually every known human society is marriage.”
When marriage fails
Our need for the social institution of marriage is most visible when it unravels. Unfortunately, those who suffer most are frequently the least prepared to bear that burden. If a marriage breaks up — or never occurs — children lose the financial and emotional stability provided by a married mother and father. Often, financial support for these fractured families comes from taxpayers.
One Rutgers University researcher estimated that the cost of a single divorce to the state and federal governments is about $30,000. This includes the cost of food stamps and public housing following a couple’s split, as well as the costs associated with increased bankruptcy and juvenile delinquency that often descend upon a broken family.
Sociologists continue to find evidence that marriage makes a difference for families — especially children. The Center for Law and Social Policy says most researchers now agree that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships.
Marriage is the only human institution that uniquely interweaves our private needs with the public need for commitment to the next generation. The tapestry of a society will be only as strong as the pattern of its threads. Marriage must be celebrated and supported by communities, families and individuals who depend upon it.
This article first appeared in the February, 2008 issue of Focus on the Family magazine..
Jenny Tyree is an associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family.
Society’s fabric is as strong as its marriages.
by Jenny Tyree
The strength of any fabric — from the sheerest muslins to the sturdiest upholstery — is its pattern of tightly woven threads. Similarly, the social institution of marriage is a pattern that strengthens the fabric of families, churches, communities and countries.
The words social institution may seem like an academic way to describe what we often think of as a private, romantic relationship, but marriage has deep cultural meaning in nearly every human society. In The Future of Marriage, scholar David Blankenhorn writes that a social institution is “a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs.” Though marital customs, traditions and responsibilities vary by country and culture, Blankenhorn writes that nearly everywhere “marriage at its core is a woman and a man whose sexual union forms the basis of an important cooperative relationship.”
This “cooperative relationship” creates a framework for meeting the physical and relational needs of women, men and children in a way that is healthy for and protective of the next generation. Marriage has been so effective that other institutions, such as the government and the church, recognize and support marriage as essential to the well-being of families.
Higher purpose
Marriage has thrived cross-culturally because its purpose surpasses the meaning that any one couple, religion or government chooses to give it. A couple entering marriage willingly commit their bodies, wills and lives to each other, as well as to an established relational design for men and women.
The public vows of marriage make a clear statement to family and friends about the commitment of the spouses — that their sexuality is exclusive and their lives and worldly goods belong to one another. The vows also make an indirect statement to the community. The couple’s willingness to enter marriage indicates that they are capable of trust and duty.
The sexual aspect of marriage underscores its procreative purpose — not just the creation of a child, but the permanent bonding of the couple. The couples’ sexual bond is of critical importance, as Blankenhorn writes “so that the mother and father will stay together to raise the baby.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, emphasizes what marriage does for fathers. “When a baby is born, there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by. If we want fathers to be equally involved in their children’s lives, biology alone won’t get us very far. The word for the way cultures attach fathers to the mother-child bond in . . . virtually every known human society is marriage.”
When marriage fails
Our need for the social institution of marriage is most visible when it unravels. Unfortunately, those who suffer most are frequently the least prepared to bear that burden. If a marriage breaks up — or never occurs — children lose the financial and emotional stability provided by a married mother and father. Often, financial support for these fractured families comes from taxpayers.
One Rutgers University researcher estimated that the cost of a single divorce to the state and federal governments is about $30,000. This includes the cost of food stamps and public housing following a couple’s split, as well as the costs associated with increased bankruptcy and juvenile delinquency that often descend upon a broken family.
Sociologists continue to find evidence that marriage makes a difference for families — especially children. The Center for Law and Social Policy says most researchers now agree that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships.
Marriage is the only human institution that uniquely interweaves our private needs with the public need for commitment to the next generation. The tapestry of a society will be only as strong as the pattern of its threads. Marriage must be celebrated and supported by communities, families and individuals who depend upon it.
This article first appeared in the February, 2008 issue of Focus on the Family magazine..
Jenny Tyree is an associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
We're making them nervous!
This is a news posting from FRCaction (Family Research Council)
Don't Believe Everything You Read
As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state's attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, "[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Brown's version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state's economy. He editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments." Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
This is the link to the above referenced new article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story
Don't Believe Everything You Read
As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state's attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, "[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Brown's version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state's economy. He editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments." Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
This is the link to the above referenced new article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story
Prop. 8 Gaining Among Voters
Field Poll Understates Support for Proposition 8 But Latest Poll Shows Initiative Gaining Among Likely Voters
July 18, 2008
Sacramento --- A new Field Poll released today shows Proposition 8 the Marriage Protection ballot initiative is gaining among likely voters, although the survey continues to significantly understate support for the initiative, officials with the Proposition 8 campaign said today. The poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, compared to the last Field Poll released on May 28. While the current Field Poll shows support for Proposition 8 has increased and opposition has dropped since their last survey, the Field Poll continues to be an outlier among publicly published polling on this initiative, said Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager for Proposition 8. The latest Field Poll reports support for Proposition 8 is at 42% (up two points since May) and opposition at 51% (down from 54%). [If the Field Poll understates support by 10%, as in Prop. 22, then we are in the 52% range right now. The Field Poll has consistently understated the support of Californians who believe the definition of marriage should be upheld, Schubert said. During Proposition 22, the Field Poll reported that support for that initiative was approximately 50% in the months leading up to the election, while the measure received more than 61% of votes at the ballot box, Schubert noted. In May when Field was reporting that support for the initiative was at 40%, the Los Angeles Times survey found support at 54%. Over the years Field has consistently understated support for the initiative by a minimum of 10 percent. The current findings continue to substantially understate the true support for the initiative. Schubert said that internal campaign polling is consistent with other polls such as the LA Times survey. Support for Proposition 8 is right where it needs to be at this stage of the campaign.
July 18, 2008
Sacramento --- A new Field Poll released today shows Proposition 8 the Marriage Protection ballot initiative is gaining among likely voters, although the survey continues to significantly understate support for the initiative, officials with the Proposition 8 campaign said today. The poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, compared to the last Field Poll released on May 28. While the current Field Poll shows support for Proposition 8 has increased and opposition has dropped since their last survey, the Field Poll continues to be an outlier among publicly published polling on this initiative, said Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager for Proposition 8. The latest Field Poll reports support for Proposition 8 is at 42% (up two points since May) and opposition at 51% (down from 54%). [If the Field Poll understates support by 10%, as in Prop. 22, then we are in the 52% range right now. The Field Poll has consistently understated the support of Californians who believe the definition of marriage should be upheld, Schubert said. During Proposition 22, the Field Poll reported that support for that initiative was approximately 50% in the months leading up to the election, while the measure received more than 61% of votes at the ballot box, Schubert noted. In May when Field was reporting that support for the initiative was at 40%, the Los Angeles Times survey found support at 54%. Over the years Field has consistently understated support for the initiative by a minimum of 10 percent. The current findings continue to substantially understate the true support for the initiative. Schubert said that internal campaign polling is consistent with other polls such as the LA Times survey. Support for Proposition 8 is right where it needs to be at this stage of the campaign.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage
Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage
1. Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
2. Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.
Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.
3. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all
citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
4. Upholding traditional marriage is not "discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airplane. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are denied the opportunity to fly an airplane. Similarly, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of human history, as expressed in virtually all cultures, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Although not strictly comparable, radically altering the definition of marriage can also pose dangers to society in much the same way as permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.
5. Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony
Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.
6. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments
Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.
· Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
· Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
7. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage
Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."
8. If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious grounds
If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class.
At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.
9. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans reject s ame-sex marriage
Public opinion remains firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. A May 2008 Gallup Poll asked the question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid?" Respondents opposed homosexual marriage by a margin of 56 percent (opposed) to 40 percent (agreeing). Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October 2007 rejected same-sex marriage by the same margins.
10. Support for traditional marriage translates into ballot initiatives and laws around the country
Because of strong public support for traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to circumvent public opinion by redefining marriage through the courts. Despite some victories, such as in Massachusetts and California where the courts have mandated same-sex marriage, there is a strong national movement to protect traditional marriage. A total of 45 states have instituted protections for traditional marriage either through state constitutional amendments or through laws:
26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
19 states currently prohibit same-sex marriage through statute only.
In addition, in 2008-9 several more states will be considering ballot initiatives to protect traditional marriage, including Florida and California . Others, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania , will be voting to institute laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow for Policy at Family Research Council
1. Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
2. Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.
Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.
3. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all
citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
4. Upholding traditional marriage is not "discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airplane. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are denied the opportunity to fly an airplane. Similarly, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of human history, as expressed in virtually all cultures, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Although not strictly comparable, radically altering the definition of marriage can also pose dangers to society in much the same way as permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.
5. Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony
Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.
6. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments
Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.
· Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
· Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
7. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage
Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."
8. If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious grounds
If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class.
At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.
9. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans reject s ame-sex marriage
Public opinion remains firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. A May 2008 Gallup Poll asked the question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid?" Respondents opposed homosexual marriage by a margin of 56 percent (opposed) to 40 percent (agreeing). Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October 2007 rejected same-sex marriage by the same margins.
10. Support for traditional marriage translates into ballot initiatives and laws around the country
Because of strong public support for traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to circumvent public opinion by redefining marriage through the courts. Despite some victories, such as in Massachusetts and California where the courts have mandated same-sex marriage, there is a strong national movement to protect traditional marriage. A total of 45 states have instituted protections for traditional marriage either through state constitutional amendments or through laws:
26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
19 states currently prohibit same-sex marriage through statute only.
In addition, in 2008-9 several more states will be considering ballot initiatives to protect traditional marriage, including Florida and California . Others, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania , will be voting to institute laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow for Policy at Family Research Council
Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans
The California Supreme Court's Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans
by Chris Gacek
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled (In re Marriage Cases) that the male-female definition of marriage, made explicit by both a 1977 state statute and the state electorate's approval of Proposition 22 in 2000, was unconstitutional. The Court asserted that legal distinctions based on sexual orientation would be subject to "strict scrutiny" - in the same way classifications based on "gender, race, and religion" are. In point of fact, few laws, regulations, or state actions that distinguish among persons or groups in any way can survive the intensity of "strict scrutiny" legal review.1 Except in the rarest circumstances, California statutes that are challenged for drawing lines even implicitly based on sexual orientation will now be struck down. Here are some examples of what may happen in California and around the nation as a result of this ruling:
Clear governmental disapproval, both direct and indirect, will attach to anyone or any organization in California that rejects the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
Public schools will teach the fully equal status of homosexual and heterosexual conduct based, in substantial part, on state marriage law. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.2
Religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples (like Catholic Charities in Massachusetts) will be forced to discontinue operations unless licensing waivers are granted; such waivers are unlikely to withstand constitutional challenge.
Faith-based organizations that do not recognize same-sex marriage could lose their California tax exemptions (e.g., see the 1983 Bob Jones University case dealing with federal tax exemptions). Since the Bob Jones case dealt with interracial dating, it could now serve as an indirect precedent for punishing a Christian college that discourages or prohibits same-sex dating while allowing male-female dating.
Although the court said in passing that "no religious officiant will be required to solemnize" a same-sex marriage, such protection may not apply to property owned by a church or ministry. For example, a boardwalk pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., owned by the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, lost its state tax-exempt status after the association refused to allow the pavilion's use for two lesbian couples' civil union ceremonies.
Speech rights of state or local government employees will be trampled with greater force. We have already seen this in the case of two Oakland, Calif., employees who advertised a meeting of a pro-family group on a workplace bulletin board already used to promote a variety of political, sexually oriented, and pro-homosexual causes. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the "Good News Employee Association" had no right to post its message.
State or county clerks may be forced to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite religious or conscientious objections. San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith is trying to protect the 115 clerks in his office who object morally to the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but his effort is already under attack from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Because California has no residency requirement for marriage - unlike Massachusetts - same-sex couples will wed in California and return en masse to other states, seeking recognition of these marriages pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The return to their home state of same-sex couples wed in California will allow for the constitutional testing of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress. Activist federal judges may strike down a state's ability to choose not to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
1 As the majority noted, laws subject to this standard "must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest."
2 In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class. At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. He later filed a civil rights action against the school district that was dismissed by Judge Mark L. Wolf (federal district court). The dismissal was affirmed in Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).
by Chris Gacek
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled (In re Marriage Cases) that the male-female definition of marriage, made explicit by both a 1977 state statute and the state electorate's approval of Proposition 22 in 2000, was unconstitutional. The Court asserted that legal distinctions based on sexual orientation would be subject to "strict scrutiny" - in the same way classifications based on "gender, race, and religion" are. In point of fact, few laws, regulations, or state actions that distinguish among persons or groups in any way can survive the intensity of "strict scrutiny" legal review.1 Except in the rarest circumstances, California statutes that are challenged for drawing lines even implicitly based on sexual orientation will now be struck down. Here are some examples of what may happen in California and around the nation as a result of this ruling:
Clear governmental disapproval, both direct and indirect, will attach to anyone or any organization in California that rejects the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
Public schools will teach the fully equal status of homosexual and heterosexual conduct based, in substantial part, on state marriage law. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.2
Religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples (like Catholic Charities in Massachusetts) will be forced to discontinue operations unless licensing waivers are granted; such waivers are unlikely to withstand constitutional challenge.
Faith-based organizations that do not recognize same-sex marriage could lose their California tax exemptions (e.g., see the 1983 Bob Jones University case dealing with federal tax exemptions). Since the Bob Jones case dealt with interracial dating, it could now serve as an indirect precedent for punishing a Christian college that discourages or prohibits same-sex dating while allowing male-female dating.
Although the court said in passing that "no religious officiant will be required to solemnize" a same-sex marriage, such protection may not apply to property owned by a church or ministry. For example, a boardwalk pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., owned by the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, lost its state tax-exempt status after the association refused to allow the pavilion's use for two lesbian couples' civil union ceremonies.
Speech rights of state or local government employees will be trampled with greater force. We have already seen this in the case of two Oakland, Calif., employees who advertised a meeting of a pro-family group on a workplace bulletin board already used to promote a variety of political, sexually oriented, and pro-homosexual causes. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the "Good News Employee Association" had no right to post its message.
State or county clerks may be forced to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite religious or conscientious objections. San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith is trying to protect the 115 clerks in his office who object morally to the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but his effort is already under attack from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Because California has no residency requirement for marriage - unlike Massachusetts - same-sex couples will wed in California and return en masse to other states, seeking recognition of these marriages pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The return to their home state of same-sex couples wed in California will allow for the constitutional testing of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress. Activist federal judges may strike down a state's ability to choose not to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
1 As the majority noted, laws subject to this standard "must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest."
2 In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class. At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. He later filed a civil rights action against the school district that was dismissed by Judge Mark L. Wolf (federal district court). The dismissal was affirmed in Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).
Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage
Debate-Tested Sound Bites on Defending Marriage
by Glenn T. Stanton
Helpful, debate-tested soundbites for defenders of natural marriage and the family.
Here is a collection of lines and arguments that Focus on the Family has learned work best in the many public debates we have done on the issue of the same-sex family. These soundbites have also been tested by focus groups and rated very strongly.
An expanded version of this can be found at:
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/marriage/Why_Not_Gay_Marriage_Bklt.pdf
Four Key Points:
Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.
Where does it stop? How do we say "no" to group marriage?
Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally pressured to perform same-sex ceremonies.
These points and others are teased out in the sound bites below...
Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation...
A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.
A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.
The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.
No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.
A Vast Social Experiment Inflicted Upon Children...
No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.
Same-sex “marriage” will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in (name of debate opponent’s) vast, untested social experiment.
But we know how the experiment will turn out…
America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure! We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse.1 Children living apart from both biological parents are 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.2
Lessons From the World's Most Famous Lesbian Mom...
Rosie O’Donnell shared this story in an ABC Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer:
Six-year-old Parker asks his mother, Rosie: “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answers: “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”3
Two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.”
Parker has never asked, “Momma, why can’t we have all the rights and protections of marriage?” You see, such things only matter to adults. But he has said, “Momma, why can’t I have a daddy?”
What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.
How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family...
If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me -- and all of us -- to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium. (said with great conviction and emotion…)
Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory...
My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.
Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.
But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.
Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.
Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.
Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.
The Public Purpose of Marriage…
Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.
Every society needs natural marriage -- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her -- working together to create and raise the next generation.
No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.
A Civil Rights Issue...?
There is no civil right to deny children their mothers or fathers, which is exactly what every same-sex home does. There is no civil right to conduct a vast, untested social experiment on children.
It is an affront to African-Americans to say having past generations being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park was on par to laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.
Civil rights leaders strongly reject this assertion. Jessie Jackson explains, “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution...and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”4
Where Does It Stop...?
If, as Andrew Sullivan says, “The right to marry whomever you want is a fundamental civil right,” how do we say “no” to a woman who wants to become the third wife of a polygamist…?5
How do we say no to grooms Jonathan Yarbrough (a bisexual) and Cody Rogahn (a homosexual) –- the first same-sex couple in Provincetown, MA to receive a marriage application –- who explained to the press “…it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case… we have an open marriage…”6
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”7
…well, that brings an important question to mind:
How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”? (This line has even won strong applause from hostile audiences!)
Is Allowing Same-Sex 'Marriage' Like Allowing Interracial Marriage...?
Striking down the ban on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying any man has a right to marry any woman. Same-sex "marriage" redefines marriage.
Marriage has nothing to do with race. Marriage has everything to do with bringing men and women to build a domestic life together -- creating and caring for the next generation.
Racism was about keeping races apart and that is wrong. Marriage is about bringing the genders together and that is good.
And it is very different for a child to say, “I have a Korean mother and a Hispanic father” than to say, “I have two moms.” (There are no negative child-development outcomes from being raised by interracial parents. There are thousands of social science studies showing negative outcomes for children who are denied their mothers and fathers.)8
Sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Homosexuality is not a civil right.
FMA: Why Would We Write Discrimination Into the Constitution...?
Why would you write radical family redefinition into the Constitution?
Our United States Constitution is going to be changed one way or the other. Either a small handful of unaccountable, activist judges are going to write a radical new definition of marriage into the Constitution, or, the American people can protect marriage constitutionally through the option the founding fathers provided via the amendment process.
Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not just dream up the need for such an amendment. We have been forced into this battle because a very small few want to constitutionally redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex activists brought this fight to all of us.
When, as president, Bill Clinton signed into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining in federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman, no one accused him of writing “discrimination” into federal law as The New York Times and others have accused President Bush of doing regarding his support of a federal marriage amendment.
Conclusion…
All of the family experimentation over the past 30 years – no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, cohabitation, fatherlessness -- have all been documented failures, harming adults and children in far deeper ways, for longer periods of time, than anyone ever imagined. Why do we think that this radical experiment will somehow bring good things?
All we have is (opponent’s name’s) promise that everything will work out fine. Well, the advocates of each of these other experiments assured us the same thing. Their promises were empty.
We all know that men and women are necessary for the family and that no child should intentionally be denied her mother or father in order to fulfill your adult desires.
That is why we cannot accept the same-sex family. It serves no public purpose.
by Glenn T. Stanton
Helpful, debate-tested soundbites for defenders of natural marriage and the family.
Here is a collection of lines and arguments that Focus on the Family has learned work best in the many public debates we have done on the issue of the same-sex family. These soundbites have also been tested by focus groups and rated very strongly.
An expanded version of this can be found at:
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/marriage/Why_Not_Gay_Marriage_Bklt.pdf
Four Key Points:
Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.
Where does it stop? How do we say "no" to group marriage?
Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally pressured to perform same-sex ceremonies.
These points and others are teased out in the sound bites below...
Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation...
A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.
A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.
The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.
No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.
A Vast Social Experiment Inflicted Upon Children...
No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.
Same-sex “marriage” will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in (name of debate opponent’s) vast, untested social experiment.
But we know how the experiment will turn out…
America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure! We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse.1 Children living apart from both biological parents are 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.2
Lessons From the World's Most Famous Lesbian Mom...
Rosie O’Donnell shared this story in an ABC Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer:
Six-year-old Parker asks his mother, Rosie: “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answers: “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”3
Two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.”
Parker has never asked, “Momma, why can’t we have all the rights and protections of marriage?” You see, such things only matter to adults. But he has said, “Momma, why can’t I have a daddy?”
What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.
How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family...
If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me -- and all of us -- to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium. (said with great conviction and emotion…)
Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory...
My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.
Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.
But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.
Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.
Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.
Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.
The Public Purpose of Marriage…
Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.
Every society needs natural marriage -- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her -- working together to create and raise the next generation.
No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.
A Civil Rights Issue...?
There is no civil right to deny children their mothers or fathers, which is exactly what every same-sex home does. There is no civil right to conduct a vast, untested social experiment on children.
It is an affront to African-Americans to say having past generations being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park was on par to laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.
Civil rights leaders strongly reject this assertion. Jessie Jackson explains, “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution...and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”4
Where Does It Stop...?
If, as Andrew Sullivan says, “The right to marry whomever you want is a fundamental civil right,” how do we say “no” to a woman who wants to become the third wife of a polygamist…?5
How do we say no to grooms Jonathan Yarbrough (a bisexual) and Cody Rogahn (a homosexual) –- the first same-sex couple in Provincetown, MA to receive a marriage application –- who explained to the press “…it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case… we have an open marriage…”6
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”7
…well, that brings an important question to mind:
How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”? (This line has even won strong applause from hostile audiences!)
Is Allowing Same-Sex 'Marriage' Like Allowing Interracial Marriage...?
Striking down the ban on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying any man has a right to marry any woman. Same-sex "marriage" redefines marriage.
Marriage has nothing to do with race. Marriage has everything to do with bringing men and women to build a domestic life together -- creating and caring for the next generation.
Racism was about keeping races apart and that is wrong. Marriage is about bringing the genders together and that is good.
And it is very different for a child to say, “I have a Korean mother and a Hispanic father” than to say, “I have two moms.” (There are no negative child-development outcomes from being raised by interracial parents. There are thousands of social science studies showing negative outcomes for children who are denied their mothers and fathers.)8
Sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Homosexuality is not a civil right.
FMA: Why Would We Write Discrimination Into the Constitution...?
Why would you write radical family redefinition into the Constitution?
Our United States Constitution is going to be changed one way or the other. Either a small handful of unaccountable, activist judges are going to write a radical new definition of marriage into the Constitution, or, the American people can protect marriage constitutionally through the option the founding fathers provided via the amendment process.
Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not just dream up the need for such an amendment. We have been forced into this battle because a very small few want to constitutionally redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex activists brought this fight to all of us.
When, as president, Bill Clinton signed into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining in federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman, no one accused him of writing “discrimination” into federal law as The New York Times and others have accused President Bush of doing regarding his support of a federal marriage amendment.
Conclusion…
All of the family experimentation over the past 30 years – no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, cohabitation, fatherlessness -- have all been documented failures, harming adults and children in far deeper ways, for longer periods of time, than anyone ever imagined. Why do we think that this radical experiment will somehow bring good things?
All we have is (opponent’s name’s) promise that everything will work out fine. Well, the advocates of each of these other experiments assured us the same thing. Their promises were empty.
We all know that men and women are necessary for the family and that no child should intentionally be denied her mother or father in order to fulfill your adult desires.
That is why we cannot accept the same-sex family. It serves no public purpose.
Welcome
Welcome to Proposition 8 Saving Marriage!
We are a group of responsible citizens in the Colfax/Meadow Vista area of California joining together to support Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The proposition contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Stay in touch and updated. Read debate-tested sound bites on defending marriage, supporting studies, current polls and local experiences and success.
We are a group of responsible citizens in the Colfax/Meadow Vista area of California joining together to support Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The proposition contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Stay in touch and updated. Read debate-tested sound bites on defending marriage, supporting studies, current polls and local experiences and success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)