Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org.
We’re in the middle of the Top Ten false “facts” reported by Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 in California—a decision that could erode marriage and First Amendment rights in the entire country. See yesterday’s column here if you missed the first five false “facts.”
6. “No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” (FF 46)
I guess thousands of ex-gays just don’t exist in Judge Walker’s special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.
This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary—a self-described “Jewish atheist,” Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they’ve turned on him because he reported the truth.
Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study “has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change.”
When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change their position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, “I think they should, [but] they will not be. . . . There’s a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”
Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker’s conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that’s intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can’t they be talked out of it?
Sexual orientation isn’t like race either. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.
Of course Walker’s “fact” even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can’t change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal “marriage” relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.
7. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.” (FF 70)
Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion “is accepted beyond serious debate.” Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his “fact.”
But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. “No respect at all—when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!”
Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.
Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain—if men and women are interchangeable—then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex”?
Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them.”
8. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.
9. “Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.” (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society’s very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.
1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.
2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn’t thrive because it wouldn’t even survive. It would end the human race!
This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.
If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality not me. I didn’t make up the facts of nature. I’m just admitting them—something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.
10. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” (Conclusion)
The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any “rational basis” for overturning Proposition 8—no rational basis from the constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their “private moral views” cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own “private moral view” that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.
He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” If that’s true, that’s not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.
Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That’s what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.
(For more about this complicated and sensitive issue, get my compact book from which some of this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)
Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org.
When one judge overturned the will of more then seven million Californians last week in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed “findings of fact” (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They’re lies or distortions.
Before we address the top ten false “facts” asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:
“The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.”
Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.
Second, Prop 8 doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker’s first false “fact.”
1. “Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.” (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker’s entire case collapses without it. The “fact” is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.
Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.
In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that’s a job for the people, not judges.
2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.” (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. As I document here, health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well)—a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That’s exactly what same-sex marriage does—it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.
But won’t same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker’s next false fact.
3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” (FF 48) What does “successful” mean? It has nothing to do with children according to Judge Walker. In his “the stork brings children” universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a “successful” marriage is merely about commitment, but he can’t even support that case.
In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it’s a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, “None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that’s why he didn’t bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.
4. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.
5. “Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.” (FF 62) It’s too bad Judge Walker didn’t look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.
Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught homosexuality in grades as low as Kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.
“But you can’t legislate morality!” some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights—rights that our founders declared self-evident.
Think I’m overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it’s poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”
On Wednesday, August 4th, a federal judge in California struck down Proposition 8, a voter-approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions in the state. The Alliance Defense Fund will appeal the decision:
Attorneys representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8.
“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process–especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.
“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”
Prop 8 has been upheld in California! The same-sex “marriages” that went into effect before Prop 8 will remain legally recognized, however. According to the Long Beach Press-Telegram:
The California Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same- sex marriage in the state, but the court also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year will remain valid.
Despite the conclusions in the 186-page ruling, the battle over same-sex marriage in California is likely to continue, with supporters insisting they will try to get the matter back on the ballot, or possibly try to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Expect gay activists to protest the ruling around the country, a campaign called Day of Decision has been planning events to either celebrate or protest today’s decision. Below are a list of cities that have Day of Decision events planned. If you live in or near one of the cities, see if you can take a bit of time to minister to these folks as they protest, showing them that we are not “mean-spirited bigots,” but instead Jesus-followers that love them and our community enough to keep marriage a male/female union. Click on a link to find out where the protest will be held in your community.
Editor’s Note: A guest community post from Marc Thomas, a frequent contributor to VOR via comments. Learn more about Marc at his blog: www.heknocks.com. Guest community posts do not necessarily represent the views of Voice of Revolution.
As I write, the seven-judges of the Supreme Court in San Francisco consider the legitimacy of Proposition 8 and whether or not to uphold or overturn the legislation forbidding homosexual marriage in California.
Since the voters of California voted ‘yes’ to the ban at the end of 2008, the new rule has been a constant source of contention.
Shannon Minter, lead counsel for the overturning of Proposition 8 is quoted by BBC News Online as saying, “Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities…A simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away from a historically protected minority” In saying this, Minter implies the following:
1) “Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities”
In actuality, the democratic government of America is there to represent the people and to implement policies under the ‘indirect’ influence of the voting public. In short, if the people agree by vote that a policy should become law, then the leaders receive legitimacy to make the law – regardless of its effect on minority groups. However, while leaders receive the ‘O.K’ from the voters to pass and implement a law – they can equally decide not to. This is the way that a representative government works.
2) “simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away…”
Minter here, we assume, refers to the right to marriage. It is true to say that previously homosexual couples had a legislative right to a marriage, and since Proposition 8, they no longer have this right.
In principle, although it is an uncomfortable thought with many implications on all of us regardless of sexual orientation or religious preference, a democratic system of government shapes its legislation through the election of representatives or by direct ‘voicing’ of opinion through vote. Equally, a society’s values and rights are defined by the society itself. Not all of the population will have the rights it desires – but on another occasion, the group previously deprived of what it perceives to be a ‘right’ will gain a different privilege or benefit by the same democratic means.
However, let us question the most basic question, namely; is there a right to homosexual marriage in the first place?
We may briefly define the Christian doctrine of Marriage as the union between a man and a woman reflecting the relationship between Christ and the Church (as seen in Song of Solomon and referred to several times by Jesus in the NT). If we take this definition to be accurate, the idea of marriage between two men or two women is at very best a misinterpretation of the doctrine.
In the Bible, God expressly forbids sexual relations between two members of the same sex and consequently we must take marriage between two homosexuals to be illegitimate. If there is no legitimacy, then there is no right.
Continuing to view homosexual marriage as a right in the context of ‘individual happiness’ and love has the effect of ‘blurring’ boundary lines. Should we also view it as a right when a man wants to be married to a child? A woman to a horse?
Can we really still say “As long as it makes them happy?”
3) “…historically protected minority.”
Let us consider the facts behind this statement – It is true that since the beginning of the 20th century, homosexuality has become more acceptable in society in general. This is due to any number of complex sociological reasons: e.g. the breakdown of the family unit following depleted male population after the war, breaking down of sexual boundaries in literature and film (both hetero- and homosexually speaking).
However, we cannot forget the laws that governed homosexuality in America until very recently. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Sodomy Law remained in California until 1976, and it is only since 2003 that the U.S Supreme Court has invalidated all remaining state sodomy laws.
Traditionally, legally and politically speaking, the homosexual community has not been a protected community.
The problems are present and they speak for themselves – America stands at a crossroads, she will either choose a liberal state or something else. The laws on homosexuality, particularly in a state as important as California, are a ‘levee,’ if the dam breaks, the land will flood.
In any case, America is rife with immorality from all sides (including heterosexual marriage which is rotten with sin) but she is certainly not alone in her malaise.
 Here let us draw a clear distinction between basic human rights – the right to think, speak and move freely – but with responsibility and tact – with the legal and social rights i.e. the laws governing marriage.
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The Guardian published the following regarding the Vermont decision, and what to expect in the near future:
Vermont is important because it is the first legislature to pass such a bill. Legal marriage for gays in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa was the result of court rulings. The Vermont bill cannot be overruled by its governor and the first gay marriages are scheduled for September.
Wolfson said: “Legislatures in several states are considering bills now and we are hoping to see movement in several of them over the next few months.”
The next is likely to be New Hampshire, whose house of representatives has voted in favour and the bill has now gone to its senate. In Maine, the state legislature is scheduled to begin committee hearings later this month. In New York and New Jersey, both their governors have promised to sign any bills passed by their legislatures.
Wolfson, who founded his organisation in 2003, sees the California ruling as a turning point. “California was a wake-up call. People realised that we had been too complacent.”
Other states laying the groundwork for bills in favour of same-sex marriages include Illinois, Washington state, Maryland and Rhode Island
In a time when state governments should be doing everything they can to strengthen natural marriage, again and again they are choosing to alter its very definition. The effects of these changes will become more and more evident over time. As stated by Frank Turek, “International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. ” Is the erosion of natural marriage and the strengthening of illegitimacy really in the best interest of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and now Vermont?
A key court case will take place today in which the constitutionality of Proposition 8 will be decided. According to CNN:
The California Supreme Court began hearing arguments Thursday in a case that could determine the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, as well as the validity of about 18,000 same-sex marriages.
The court is tackling the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November.
Its opponents are seeking to have the amendment nullified. They maintain Proposition 8 alters the state constitution and therefore, under state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention.
The video below is from a same-sex marriage rally in San Diego yesterday: [Link To Video]
Lou Engle, founder of The Call and the Justice Houses of Prayer, provided some insight into the issue and issued a call to prayer on his blog:
Today, March 5th, one of the most significant court cases in America’s history will take place. The California Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the overturning of the vote of the people last year to pass Proposition 8, which defines marriage between a man and a woman. If this vote is overturned, not only will it set a major precedent of the court’s power over the will of the people, but it will likely be the flash point that will determine the future of America as liberal and homosexual agendas will disseminate throughout the educational systems and into the very fiber of American culture. The California State Senate just ruled against the peoples’ vote and asked the court to overthrow the defining of marriage as between a man and a woman. Senator Leno likened the people who voted for Prop 8 to the Germans who voted for the Nazi Regime.
During these past three months since President Obama’s election, the voices of rage against Judeo-Christian values and against the church have been emboldened to use inflammatory language and pass bills and laws that are anti-Christian in their very nature. When senators use such language, persecution is close at hand. We are in a desperate moment in American history. Everyone is pointing to the severe crisis of our economy, but I am convinced it is only an indicator of a massive moral decline America has slid into. It is time to pray, humble ourselves, and rid ourselves of moral compromise in the Church. If the salt loses its savor, it is only good for being thrown out and trampled under the foot of man.
In addition to those those that will be directly affected by the ruling (as Randy Thomas points out: “if Prop 8 is upheld … what happens to the 18,000 gay couples that got state marriage certificates that recognize their union?”), this ruling will surely affect the rest of the nation both culturally and legally. As others have stated, as goes California, so goes the nation!
A new campaign from homosexual activists to counter California’s Prop 8 is coming out with a series of commercials aimed at normalizing the public perception of gay couples and gay families, and promoting the legalization of gay marriage. The campaign is called GetToKnowUsFirst.org, their website declares:
In the wake of California’s passage of Proposition 8, a group of gay and lesbian families are taking to the airwaves with five 30-second Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that are airing on daytime and prime time television throughout the state.
They ran in urban and rural markets on broadcast and cable channels during the Presidential Inauguration and will continue through the spring. Their purpose is to capture the hearts and minds of people who do not understand why marriage is so important to us.
Marriage promotes families. Support marriage equality Get to know us first.
The following is one of the commercials (the rest can be found here) , note the prominence of church, prayer, and family in the ad: [Link to Video]
They are currently raising money to buy ad time during this year’s Super Bowl:
We successfully ran our ads on broadcast and cable television in 42 of California’s 58 counties before, during and after the Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009. These images of happy gay and lesbian families are new for many viewers and our work has just begun.
Next stop? The Super Bowl! Every dollar we collect will go to purchase ads during the most viewed sports event of the year (Sunday, February 1, 2009), replicating our regional DMA media buy strategy. No doubt, our PSAs will be the topic of many a water cooler conversation. I am willing to believe that, stacked up against the Cheetos, Fritos and Pepsi ads, ours will stand out as remarkable!
Homosexual propaganda, depicting the wonderful family life of gay couples with children, aired during the Super Bowl? It’s coming friends, whether or not this particular campaign is able to obtain the money it needs this year, it’s coming.
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse,suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
Homosexual activists are boldly proclaiming that they want to change society, and because the facts concerning homosexuality and homosexual parenting are not on their side, they will continue to appeal to people’s emotions to support their case. It is in a child’s best interest to be raised by both a mother and a father, that simple truth needs to be trumpeted loud and clear, especially as the public starts to really consider these questions. As Dr. Brown has stated elsewhere, “The truth will triumph!”
Editor’s Note: The text below is slightly altered in wording and punctuation from the originally published version. Unless otherwise stated, we make no endorsements of the links, media, organizations, or people we report on.
In the ongoing cultural debate over gay marriage, those that oppose it will at times attempt to show that the arguments used in favor of same-sex marriage can just as easily be applied to polygamy, thus opening the door for its legalization if gay marriage is legalized. In response, the pro-gay-marriage crowd usually responds mockingly, with phrases like “we graduated from the second grade,” or “this is a straw man you’ve set up, polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage.”
What happens, however, when a pro-gay writer on the biggest liberal blog on the net argues the same point as those opposed to gay marriage? On January 6th, Lee Stranahan published an article on The Huffington Post called Why Are Gay Marriage Advocates Not Defending Polyamory? He ends his article with the following:
But what’s a poly person to do if they want to enter into a committed relationship with the people they love? Polygamy – marriage to more than one person – is no more an option for conseting [sic] adults in the United States than gay marriage is in all states expect Massachusetts and Connecticut. If the rights of gay people are being trampled on, then it’s two states worse for poly people.
If you follow the same argument template as many gay marriage advocates, anyone who opposes polygamy is a bigot and a hater. Rick Warren has made it clear that he opposes poly relationship, too. And even comparing consensual poly relationship to Jeffs is equating polyamorists with PEDOPHILES!
If Melissa Etheridge has the right to marry Tammy Lynn Michaels – and I think she does – then [sic] Melissa and Tammy also have the same right to make it official with David Crosby, it they choose to do so. In fact, if they wanted to marry Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Linsday Lohan, Samantha Ronson, Mark Ronson AND Ani Difranco…it’s their choice and their right and it’d make quite a tour, too.
There’s no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.
Aside from reasons of consistency, advocates of gay marriage should also be vocally in favor of polygamy since it allows bisexuals to be actively practicing married bisexuals. Bisexuals are the B in GLBT but they really get short shrift in the marriage discussion.
I’m in favor of real marriage equality. Love the one you’re with. Love the two or more you’re with, if you can work that out. Marry them if you’re into that kind of thing. But until the gay marriage movement embraces polygamy…well, they are just acting like bigots and haters, aren’t they?
“There is no argument you can make against poly marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.” Exactly! And on the flip side, there is no argument you can make for gay marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument for polygamy. Lee Stranahan sees this, perhaps others in his camp will soon see this as well.
The reaction from the gay community has been shock and confusion. Jeremy Hooper from Good As Youwrites: “We’ve seen many anti-gays make the ‘gay marriage = polygamous marriage’ argument. But when it comes from a professed supporter of same-sex marriage equality, it’s a little harder to swallow.” He then responds to Mr. Stranahan’s article with the arguments that “Bisexuals are not innately polyamorous. We thought this went without saying, but apparently not. Bisexuality just means an attraction to both genders, not a CONCURRENT RELATIONSHIP with both sexes!” and (before changing it) “the fact is that marriage has always been considered a commitment between two people.”
Let us first consider his statement concerning bisexuality and polyamorous behavior. This was Mr. Hooper’s response to ADF’s Glen Lavy asserting that bisexuality and polygamy are related:
No Glen? You really don’t see any difference between a bisexual who wants two partners and a same-sex couple who wants one? Oh, well here, we graduated from the second grade — let us help you:
BISEXUALITY, LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY OR HETEROSEXUALITY, IS AN ORIENTATION, NOT A CHOSEN PATTERN OF COMMITMENT!!! Just like a man who is attracted to two different women must pledge a legal commitment to only the ONE of them who he intends to marry, a bisexual person must also enter into a union with only ONE PERSON! Bisexuality doesn’t mean a person is attracted to multiple partners — it just means that their capacity for finding their true love is not limited to only one specific gender!!!! It’s BIsexuality, not SIMULTANEOU-sexuality!! Stop pretending like you do not know this!!!!!
Alrighty, we feel better now. But you know what would REALLY ****(sexual reference edited out by VOR’s editor)***? If these self-professed good Christians would stop lying through their ever-loving teeth!
Glen Lavy and Lee Stranahan asserted the same belief, and yet Good As You treated Mr. Lavy with ridicule and contempt, accusing him of knowingly lying, while giving Mr. Stranahan nothing more than a humble correction. Without addressing the accuracy of their specific statements, what possible reason could there be for treating them so differently other than anti-Christian bigotry? Good As Youdeclares that they “strive to provide a safe, progressive, and positive forum in which we work to eliminate discrimination and intolerance.” I ask Mr. Hooper to publically apologize for the glaring discrimination and intolerance shown by him towards Mr. Lavy and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Finally, let us look at his statement on historical marriage. Thankfully, Mr. Hooper eventually changed his laughably inaccurate statement “the fact is that marriage has always been considered a commitment between two people” to the toned down and slightly less absurd “marriage has largely been considered a commitment between two people.” However, one has to wonder how such a statement could ever have been published in the first place. The reason is that many in the LGBT community really believe it to be true. How? Could it be that many Americans have had their understanding of what marriage is supposed to look like shaped more by Hollywood than historical fact? To many, marriage is exclusively a matter of falling in love, thus they have neither considered the historical foundations of marriage, nor the long-range impact gay marriage will have on society. The historical facts about marriage in reality (as opposed to made up ones) are as follows:
The majority of cultures throughout history have defined marriage as the formal union of one man and one woman.
A minority of cultures throughout history have defined marriage as the formal union of a man and one or more women.
An infinitesimally small number of cultures throughout history have given some kind of recognition to same-sex unions, but even then, these relationships were primarily pederastic relationships, and even in those cases, these relationships were often abandoned when the older party involved got married to a person of the opposite sex. So, even in these rare instances of recognized or formalized same-sex unions, the union of two people of the same sex was not considered to be on an equal plane to marriage.
The truth is plain, I pray that those at Good As You, and gay activists everywhere, are willing to see it.