Why “Gay Marriage” is Not Inevitable

Election Day was a drubbing for marriage. The ballot initiatives to protect marriage lost by over 4% in Maine, Minnesota, Washington State, and Maryland. Those who support same-sex “marriage” reportedly spent over $33 million, while those who defend marriage spent just over $10 million.

Many friends have said that same-sex marriage is inevitable. It is not. I have confidence that fence-sitters will enter the fray in support of traditional marriage. As we continue to debate this issue, three important forces can shift the outcome in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consider first, public opinion; second, the methods and the message of LGBT activists; and third, reality.

Public Opinion Gives Marriage a Fighting Chance
The American public offers differing levels of assent to same-sex marriage, depending on how the survey questions are worded. Psychologically, it matters how questions are asked.

Consider these facts:

1. Data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) shows 24% of the young-adult population on the fence, saying they’re “not sure” when asked whether “it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry in America.” There’s more support than antagonism, but not a majority on either side, given the nearly one-quarter who remain on the sidelines.

2. A national post-election survey conducted on Election Day by The Polling Company, Inc., showed that 60% of American voters agree that “marriage is between one man and one woman,” while only 34% disagree. Another poll two months earlier showed that 57% were in agreement.

3. After their Election Day victories, same-sex marriage advocates stated that they will continue to prioritize expanding the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages through legislatures and the courts, not through public vote. This is a continuation of their past policy that avoided putting the issue up for a direct citizen vote (the ballot initiatives in Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota were initiated by supporters of traditional marriage; only Maine was their choice to repeal our side’s ballot measure of 2009). This indicates their lack of confidence in their ability to get enough votes.

4. Six New York state senators were ousted from office after they abandoned their constituents to vote in favor of same-sex marriage. Five of those senators lost their re-election bids this year, in large part due to their change of position on marriage; the sixth retired rather than face re-election.

5. “Third Day,” a Democratic organization’s own survey revealed that on a scale of 0 – 10, with 10 being the most in favor, 26% labeled themselves 9 – 10 in favor of same-sex marriage, compared to 30% who said they were 0 -1; 44% were somewhere in the middle. Only 32% said they would be glad if same-sex couples could marry; 37% said that would not be acceptable.

Despite large sums spent—as happened this November when gay activists spent a whopping $33 million—the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman continues to hold sway; and, no matter how hard activists try, it seems impossible to strip it away from the human heart of a very substantial portion of people. It is the reality of common sense deeply embedded in the human heart. 

Methods and Message
Efforts by the LGBT movement to make school curricula more sympathetic to the gay agenda continue to raise concerns among parents. So much so that leaders of the LGBT movement have had to adjust. In the November 7 article in Slate, titled “How Marriage Finally Won at the Polls,” Nathaniel Frank explains how the coalition of LGBT activists working to pass gay marriage in Maine and Maryland revised their message strategy to counter the “Princess” ad prepared by Frank Schubert. Here is what Nathaniel Frank writes:

Thalia Zepatos of Freedom To Marry, who oversees the coalition’s messaging research, describes another revelation from the data. Schubert’s misleading “princess” ads implied that schools could usurp the role of parents in teaching pro-gay values, but that was wrong. As Zepatos and her team pored over the research, they watched conversations in which voters spoke among themselves and kept circling back to the same insight: Parents are the parents, and they teach their kids values at home. The challenge, Zepatos and her colleagues determined, was to reassure voters about this conclusion. Parents knew they had the control, but the Schubert ads—which in the past have killed a pro-gay lead in the polls at the last minute—made them anxious about losing it.

LGBT activists have had to go out of their way to reassure parents they are in charge of teaching values to their children, given the powerful evidence provided by Schubert, and experienced by many parents.

A 2011 Research Report issued by the Democratic think tank Third Way, and used to develop the 2012 campaign to win the state ballot initiatives, stated among its six key findings that: “It is crucial to include reaffirmation of religious liberty protections as a significant part of supporters’ message framework.” And as the public is aware, it is increasingly being proclaimed by politicians working to pass gay marriage that religious liberty protections are being provided.

But this is misleading. As Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty show in their Public Discourse article “Mandating Our Religious Freedom,” the current Progressive movement, of which LGBT activists are a core constituency, is clearly moving in the opposite direction. And in a more recent Public Discourse article “A War on Religion?” Bruce Hausknecht provides examples contrary to the message LGBT leaders are now using to win.

Reality: Distinguishing What Is Myth from What Is True
The Left now has the White House (for four more years), in addition to the universities, Hollywood, large portions of the media, and high-tech industry.

But can this reliance on the power of the elite institutions be sustained in the long run? Perhaps, if the majority of the people come to accept that to flourish one is to be allowed to do whatever one wants regarding sexual practices. I submit that the majority of people do not grasp that this is the message of the LGBT movement, and as they do grasp it, they will shift to the view that our sexuality has boundaries and is ordained toward something greater than whatever we want.

Don’t take it from me; take it from Dan Savage as quoted by Mark Oppenheimer’s New York Times article, “Married with Infidelities”:

Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

Social science research shows us, and a growing body of journalistic reporting reveals, that gay men are not interested in permanent monogamous relationships. Lesbians are more apt to be monogamous, but less apt to remain together long-term. One myth that LGBT activists push is that marriage is what most homosexual people want. Will the provision of marriage cause gay and lesbian Americans to enter lasting and stable relationships en masse? Unlikely. Another myth that the activists push is the “no differences” thesis: the claim that there are no differences in outcomes for children parented by heterosexual couples or homosexual couples.

The sonogram helped people see the unborn child in the womb and realize it is alive; it made a powerful case for life. Similarly, we have to expose the myths of the gay marriage movement. Several events of 2012 have brought us closer to that goal.

First, in a peer-reviewed research paper published in the prestigious journal Social Science Research, titled “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Professor Loren Marks of Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology reviews the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that supported the “no differences” thesis. Marks concludes:

To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science.

Second, Mark Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study (NFSS) uses the second-largest nationally representative sample (ever) to measure a host of outcomes in which the adult children of intact biological families fare better than any other combination, including children raised by a mother or a father who has been in a gay or a lesbian relationship. Its results also show something striking and unexpected: only two out of 15,000 young Americans screened for the survey reported spending their entire childhood with two lesbian parents; none reported the same with two gay fathers. Children, of course, don’t fare as well when there is a lack of stability in the home.

Third, scores of people who read the Regnerus study were inspired to reveal even more about the gay subculture; and, yes, by their accounts, the Regnerus study depicts reality far better than shows like Modern Family and The New Normal. Surprised? Most of these people will remain nameless, rather than submit themselves to unwanted hostility. But expect more of them to step up as witnesses to the lies that undergird the movement for same-sex marriage. See, for example, Robert Lopez’s essay “Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View.”

Fourth, legal cases are mounting against the discrimination, harassment, and loss of jobs for people who do not support same-sex marriage. A new growth industry is the pro bono legal associations to protect freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and more recently the newly created Freedom of Conscience Fund. It is very laudable that trained professionals are stepping up to defend civil liberties; one may hope this will continue to awaken the conscience of the public.

Ultimately, the future of marriage will not be decided by our likes or our dislikes. Human suffering will periodically remind us that losing a healthy marriage culture produces all kinds of practical costs and penalties. These are measured by those social pathologies that impose a great weight on our society, such as depression, addiction, violence, and illness, as well as missed educational and economic opportunities. However you slice it, the intact biological family continues to be the best “Department of Health, Education and Welfare” when it comes to raising the next generation. Marriage is worth fighting for, even if we lose. Because remember, LGBT activists will lose too as they bring us all down. And that is a sobering thought.

This essay first appeared November 26, 2012 on Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute, and is reprinted with permission.

Luis Tellez


Luis Tellez is President of the Witherspoon Institute located in Princeton, New Jersey.

  • Pingback: Why “Gay Marriage” is Not Inevitable | Catholic Canada()

  • Unfortunately, the logic of this article, persuasive though it may be, will not be enough (even with the Pope’s powerful arguments in support thereof) to derail the headlong rush to embrace licence, vice, immorality, and perversion….mostly in the English speaking world. Why? Because most people are simply not concerned over moral issues but rather being members of a nacissist, materialistic culture, remained obsessed only with monetary and financial concerns. Meanwhile the (mostly)English speaking world continues it’s descent into the moral abyss.

    • thebentangle

      John, I take exception to your characterization of gays as licentious, immoral, narcissistic, materialistic, and perverted. I am gay, and I am none of these things. You make me out to be some kind of monster. Shame on you.

      • Paul Tran

        Thebentangle, you are all the things you deny to be but you just don’t know it that’s all. I just feel sorry for you.

        • thebentangle

          Paul, what you just wrote is very interesting. It perfectly illustrates what a blogger named Ray Olson said recently on another thread at Crisis.

          What caught my attention is that you’ve told me what I am and who I am, in spite of not knowing me at all. And then you claim I do not know myself! There has been a pattern of this kind of judgment in all the discussions I’ve participated in at Crisis. Ray Olson correctly saw its affinity with the totalitarianisms of China and the Soviet Union, where those in power “claim they know other persons’ minds better than the persons–or anyone other than the Communists–do themselves. They call what you and I think “false consciousness”. They treat that condition with re-education (brain-washing), show trials, cultural revolutions, and, inevitably, plenty of executions, starvation, and excessive exposure to bad weather.

          In nearly every case where I identify myself as gay, conservative Catholic bloggers seem to have a certain “idea” of me that nothing I say can dislodge or dispel. I find I have to keep saying, over and over again, that I am not unhappy, that I am not ridden with disease, that I am not a moral monster. These relentless accusations—typical of what so many GLBTs have to put up with—are driven by a disembodied idea that refuses to ground itself in the lived experience and the reality of actual human beings. It cannot perceive reality, only stereotypes.

          Ray was right about the totalitarian mindset. It always pretends to know every one of us better than we know ourselves. And to know what is better for us.

          • Andy

            Wow! That was beautiful. I certainly don’t know you at all, either. But would you mind if I said that you are incredibly thoughtful and self-aware?

    • It is a shame how you have let mindless junk from failed societies like puritans and old catholic europe about “perversion” and “vice” regarding other people’s harmless loving relationships still stay in your mind. You are a mere vessel for old dogma with absolutely no reasons, only kneejerk emotional reactions. You are no different from those who are made uncomfortable by the mere presence of black people, with no logic, only stubborn resistance built into you by others instead of your own thought and decisions.

  • I agree with you that in most cases fostering an in-tact biological family is the best path. The problem is, pushing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people into marriages with someone of
    the opposite sex while hiding their orientation will only lead to a
    breakdown of marriages, destroying any benefit that the children might have enjoyed from being raised in an in-tact biological family.

    • People have been “pushed” into marrying only one member of the opposite sex for what, millennia? I’m not seeing any historical evidence that that standard has “[led] to a breakdown of marriages, destroying any benefit that the children might have enjoyed from being raised in an in-tact biological family.”

      • thebentangle

        Christian, read my statistics in my earlier comment. Divorce rates are higher in states that have constitutional bans on SSM. There is a reason for this. It’s because there are a lot of unhappy marriages between gay individuals and straight ones.

      • Yes but until the last 50 years, it would not have been socially acceptable for anyone to admit their same-sex attractions. Not to mention that for a long time divorce was not acceptable socially. Yes there are a number of happy opposite-sex couples but there are also a number of marriages where a gay or lesbian individual felt that they had to marry someone of the opposite sex because of the social pressure. More often than not you are seeing these marriages break down because there is a lack of intimacy in the relationship (after all, in most cases the gay or lesbian is hiding that part of themselves for the entire time).

        That is why there is the Straight Spouse Network that exists to provide support for the woman or man who married the gay or lesbian and had their life destroyed because of it. http://www.straightspouse.org/home.php

    • thebentangle

      Yes, Paul, yes! You hit the nail on the head. When gays and lesbians have no option to marry the person they love, they often marry anyway, because everyone needs family, and for some the loneliness of single status is intolerable. This is why, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, there is a negative correlation between divorce rates and legalized same-sex marriage in this country. I can never understand why Catholics, who are so opposed to divorce and promiscuity, would not throw their full weight behind same-sex marriage, which is an effective way of reducing both. It’s baffling.

      • Kevin McCormick

        True Catholics are not interested in solving social problems with false answers. The idea of same-sex marriage is based on the false premise that marriage is mainly an emotional relationship irrespective of the bodies of the individuals who are attempting to marry. Members of the same sex cannot marry because bodily union is not possible between two members of the same sex. Marriage requires not only a verbal commitment but also the union of the sex organs of the two persons. This is only possible for two bodies which are complementary to each other. The Catholic Church bases it’s teaching on natural law which is revealed in our bodies and in the world. Without getting too graphic here, suffice it to say that two men or two women do not have the complementary sex organs capable of sexual union with each other. It is not a matter of bigotry to state this; rather, it is a matter of fact.

        • thebentangle

          Kevin, Catholics will never solve social problems because they are blind to the realities of human nature and their fundamental assumptions about it are deeply flawed. What is more, Catholics like yourself are in deep denial about what is going on in the world that we live in. Your claim that “members of the same sex cannot marry” illustrates this perfectly. In nine states and a dozen countries, members of the same sex CAN marry. You cannot keep denying this. It is like denying that the Earth orbits the Sun. I myself am planning my marriage with my partner in a state that recently legalized same-sex marriage.

          Your insistence on sexual complementarity is also based on a flawed assumption–namely, that complementarity is necessary for sexual attraction, for love, for commitment, and for marriage. This is just wrong, and I can attest to its wrongness because of my own lived experience. I don’t know what the philosophical underpinnings for this notion are, but it reeks of essentialism, which has permeated and afflicted Catholic thinking for centuries. Natural law is an arcane concept that basically means anything you want it to mean, and hardly anyone buys it. It is usually unpacked when the moral authority of the Church is in sharp decline, as it is now.

          • Kevin McCormick

            Marriage is not something granted by the state, nor in fact is it granted by the Church. The word “marriage” signifies an acknowledgement of a physical reality and a promise of the participants to accept the permanence of that reality. Marriage is something that a man and a woman and God do together. Both the Church and the state have a vested interest in recognizing and encouraging marriage because marriages unite families and united families and ancestry form communities from which we develop societies and culture.

            If a state chooses to recognize a relationship which is not a marriage and yet call it a “marriage” because the participants claim it to be one, this does not in any way change the fundamental fact that it is not a marriage. You may insist that an apple is an orange, but that does not make it so. The state cannot define, nor can it re-define, a natural reality, and neither can you or me. We can only acknowledge what exists.

            A person may wish that this reality were different but that does not change it. This does not mean that complementarity is necessary for sexual attraction, but that our bodies do reveal that sexual union between two men is not possible and thus marriage is not possible between those two persons.

            The Church has maintained 2000 years of consistent teaching on this matter and it will outlast this current fad just as it has outlasted the many fads over the centuries. In fact, if you look at history carefully you will find that on matters of faith and morals Catholic Church teaching was always ahead of the curve rather than behind it. (Emphasis on the word “teaching”–actions by individuals are a whole different matter.) The Church has an obligation to teach the truth in and out of season regardless of whether the culture is Christian or pagan or otherwise.

            If you wish to better understand the Church’s teaching on sexuality I would suggest reading Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It was written decades before its time and is only now being fully understood for its brilliance.

            • thebentangle

              Kevin, I want to focus for a minute on what you wrote about Catholic teaching being “ahead of the curve.” You wrote, “If you look at history carefully you will find that on matters of faith and morals Catholic Church teaching was always ahead of the curve rather than behind it. (Emphasis on the word “teaching”–actions by individuals are a whole different matter.)”

              Here’s just one little example of the way the institutional Church has been way behind the curve, and if I had an hour or so, I could provide many others:

              On the question of slavery, we know that the Cathedral of Salamanca was built by slaves and that some popes owned slaves. The naval galleys of the Papal States used captured Muslim slaves. St. Augustine argued that slavery was not forbidden by natural law, and Thomas Aquinas believed it was acceptable given certain restrictions. During the Age of Discovery, several papal bulls approved of slavery. To give credit where credit is due, some of the popes did also condemn “unjust slavery,” but Jesuit missionaries owned slaves, and books critical of slavery were on the Index of Forbidden Books until 1826. There was never any Papal condemnation of the Transatlantic slave trade.

              Even after our Emancipation Proclamation and passage of the 13th Amendment, Pope Pius IX in 1866 affirmed that slavery was NOT against divine law. One hundred years later, the Second Vatical Council finally declared slavery to be an “infamy.” That was 1965!!

              So how can you maintain that the Church was “ahead of the curve” on slavery? Maybe you meant it was ahead of Saudi Arabia’s curve.

              Do you know anything about the Church’s history of anti-Semitism? How about its history of persecuting homosexuals? And heliocentricism? Evolution? The evils of fascism?

              The problem with the Church is that when it is behind the curve, it denies that there even is one, and then when it finally catches up, it denies that it was ever behind the curve. This is happening as we speak on the matter of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered.”

              • mally el

                Not all slavery is bad. We still have slaves today. They are those contracted to do a certain job for the one who pays them. Employees are, in a sense, slaves. Over time, states created laws for the wellbeing of all concerned.
                Even in the time of Jesus there were slaves. These workers were bonded (contracted) for a period of time or till they reached the age of about thirty years. Many happily stayed on along with their families after the period was over. One cannot forget the advice our Lord gave them, namely to love and respect each other.
                Homosexual practices are still considered to be unacceptable in every Asian country, in every African country (except South Africa), in every Middle-eastern country and in many European and American countries. So, it is not just a Church issue. The problem with the West is that it is taking us way back to the days of Sodam and, perhaps, even Noah. Yes, instead of trying to strenghten our marriages, and the families that they personally create, some leaders are taking us down the ages to some dark times.

              • Kevin McCormick

                I would add to Mally’s comment that it is also important to give historical credit where credit is due. Christianity is responsible for the fact that there was ever any serious discussion about the abolition of slavery. The Greek philosophers accepted slavery as a matter of fact as did most of the world until comparatively recently. The Church, however, had been discussing the validity of slavery from its earliest stages after it was out from under the oppression of the Roman government. It was Catholic Christianity that ever even brought up the issue of whether slavery was right or wrong. This because of the morality inherent in the teachings of Christ of the dignity of every person, as Paul said, neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free.

                The other topics you mentioned are either similar examples of the Church being the lone voice of truth, acts of individuals but not condoned by Church teaching, or outside the scope of faith and morals.

  • As long as artificial contraception underpins the West’s now-degraded idea of “traditional marriage,” then “gay marriage” is as inevitable as cohabitation, premarital sex, easy divorce, easy pornography, abortion, euthanasia, transgendering, etc.

  • thebentangle

    Mr. Tellez, your first sentence contains your first faulty premise. Election day was not a “drubbing for marriage.” It was a victory for marriage. My partner and I began making plans for our own ceremony, to be held next summer, and on December 9, we stood at the base of the Courthouse steps in Seattle as 142 same-sex couples exited the building with marriage certificates in hand. Some of the couples had been in monogamous relationships for several decades but never dreamed the day would come when they could marry. It was a joyous and great day for the institution of marriage.

    It is true that there was big money behind our campaign in this state. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates of Microsoft gave a bundle, as did Jeff Bezos (Amazon), and many major corporations: Starbucks, Nike, REI, Alcoa, Expedia, T-Mobile, Nordstrom. The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Seattle Times, the Tacoma News-Tribune were among newspapers supporting marriage equality, and Governor Chris Gregoire also threw her weight behind it.

    You don’t need to foretell doom for our state. A study published in Social Science Quarterly (4/13/2009) found that “laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, or the percent of children born out of wedlock.” In fact, the seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 had all enacted gay marriage bans. Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008, and that rate had declined 21% since 2003. Alaska, on the other hand, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate after writing a gay marriage ban into its constitution in 1998.

    So, divorce rates generally decline where SSM is made legal, and they are higher where SSM is banned. Do you have any idea what contributes to this apparent negative correlation. The answer is not too difficult when you think about it.

    A lot of divorces occur because an gay person has married a straight one and it hasn’t worked out. Estimates are that in China alone there are 50 million such mismatched couples–a sure recipe for domestic misery. Fifty million is the combined populations of California and Illinois. Just think how many mismatches there must be in the U.S. Everyone suffers when individuals cannot marry the ones they love.

    Same-sex marriage not only tends to stabilize individuals who might otherwise be promiscuous. It also allows proper and sensible matching of gays to gays and straights to straights.

    This is why I say our recognition of marriage equality in Washington state was a victory for marriage, for monogamy, for stability, and for the cause of domestic happiness.

    • Exactly. The statistics about gays and lesbians lacking commitment are a bit skewed. Of course they are going to lack the ability to enter a monogamous committed relationship if they are still facing issues of accepting themselves. The sad part is that much of the insecurity that leads them to seek out promiscuous lives of multiple sex partners is caused by the shame that is created by religious family members who tell them it is bad to be gay.

      There is just as much promiscuity in the world among straight men and women who are not yet emotionally ready for a serious relationship. If marriage is supposed to be the solution to this promiscuity among straight people then it should also be a solution for gays and lesbians.

      I was raised Catholic and take to heart the messages of commitment and monogamy I was raised with. That is why I am devoted to my boyfriend and hope to marry him once Prop 8 is overturned in California.

      • Paul Tran

        Homosexuality, just as promiscuity, is sinful. Trying to blur the issue by justifying one sin versus another committed by many , regardless of sexual orientation, will not legitimize your argument.
        If you were raised as a Catholic, you obviously have not learned much.

        • thebentangle

          Paul, that is a very rude and insensitive thing to say. Why are so many Catholics so rude?

          • mally el

            The truth might hurt but it is never rude.

  • Nekbbew

    It’s always good to see ignorance and thinly veiled hate and other wonderful by-products produced by those who demand they control everyone else. It’s so funny that religious zealots scream so loudly at how evil I am as a gay person,… Yet they utterly fail in even the minor and easiest to understand direct statements from their own holy book. It’s actually good to see that those that demanded slavery of black people and that the earth was flat,.. That black people and other non-white races are sub-human,.. That its a much better idea to have starving babies than to feed them or that the funny thing that God gave all humanity – the freedom to choose – human will – actually was really not a good idea,… That they actually know better than the God they worship,…. It’s funny how these religious people forget about God demanding the murder of babies women and men,… Or even the very teachings of their own Jesus the Christ. It is actually good to see how dishonest they are – truly are – and are more about power,..control and a heavy political hand,….and money,…lots and lots and lots of money. It’s good they show their true intentions – it keeps us aware at just how distasteful they truly are. Thanks again for your updates. 🙂

    • mally el

      Talking about control! Who is it that wants to claim marriage? To have control over some artificial redefintion of it? It is absolutley dishonest to deny the two-gender nature of marriage. And since you brought Jesus into it, let me remind you that he said that it was for marriage that God made us Male and Female. But then, nature tells us the very same thing.

      • Augustus

        Mally el: Don’t mind Kekbbew. You can’t talk reason with someone who is only capable of irrational (and illogical) outbursts.

  • mally el

    Nobody is stopping any two (or more) people, including homosexuals, from living together. However, the marriage that occurs when two people from the two genders inherent in our nature commit themselves together, is a unique relationship and extremely important for our stability and wellbeing. Politicians did not create this wonderful marriage – our nature did.

    Yes, there are many problems facing marriage, especially in the West, but let us focus on strengthening this marriage rather than making it not only dysfunctional (as some have pointed out) but also meaningless. This is not about being against homosexuals but about preserving and strengthening marriage.
    There are many relationships in society – hopefully, all loving ones – but there is only one that brings about the marriage phenomenon. It is in our nature, as natural as gravity and time. And just as gravity and time provide our physical world with stability and continuity so also does marriage provide the same for humanity. Let us not allow social engineers destroy or pollute our human nature.

    • thebentangle

      Mally, I am going to be married next summer to my partner of the past 13 years and do not consider there to be anything “disfunctional” about our relationship. Furthermore, nothing about same-sex marriage “pollutes” opposite-sex marriage in any way. Instead of insulting us, can you not wish us well?

      • mally el

        Some may call your relationship a marriage but the fact is that there is no marriage. Two of the same gender do not make a marriage. Any attempt to redefine marriage by omitting the two gender aspect is a pollution. I am not insulting anyone; just stating the facts. Only those who deny the fact see it as an insult.

        • thebentangle

          Mally, here’s the fate that awaits you: You will soon be unable to express this opinion at any civilized dinner-table without evoking an embarrassed silence. Conversation will stop. People will shun you. You will be a pariah, a has-been. The young ladies will just listen and say, “Oh-kay…” and then disappear. Your grand-children will think you’re a fossil and will laugh at you behind your back. You will have left a legacy of mean-spiritedness, and you will be remembered for it. You will only see my prediction as an insult if you deny it.

          • mally el

            Actually, tba, if this wannabe marriage does establish itself, civilized society will come to an end. Fake parents (! & 2) fake brothers and sisters, and fake families would cause tremendous problems. The only ones who will walk with their heads high will be the ones who oppose this corruption/pollution of a natural phenomenon that is embedded in human nature.

            • thebentangle

              Mally, you are speaking as if same-sex marriage were something completely new and untested. It is not. It has already been around for a decade, and we are seeing none of the “tremendous problems” that you envision. So, let’s just think in terms of “evidence” to support wild speculations about future outcomes. Otherwise, our predictions of disaster just appear to be what they are–hysterical fears. Get a grip!

              • mally el

                It is true that same-gender unions or ‘marriages’ have been around for a decade or so. Sadly, we are already seeing signs of the harm that
                it is doing.
                To most of us the words ‘Mum’ and ‘Dad’ are among the most
                endearing terms. Yet, in one part of the world, staff have been directed not to use these words to describe parents. Children in some schools are not allowed to make Father’s Day Cards. A few adoption agencies that, for generations, had served the community well were forced to shut down. There are moves to replace father and mother with Parent 1 and Parent 2. Now, they even want us to ignore or reject the existence of the absolutely important GENDER.
                They say that bad money drives away good money, and here we
                see it happening. And worse will follow when real marriages creating real
                families give way to make-believe marriages with their technologically
                fabricated families in which there is no sense of mum, dad, brother and sister – of boy and girl. People will soon realise that human souls are not just sexual creatures.

                • The words aren’t going away completely, just being removed from government forms as a recognition that not all relationships are of the opposite sex variety. Rather than having some separate form for same-sex couples, they have one form that can accommodate both types of families. I call my mom my mom and my dad my dad not because of what their designations are on some form but because of the role they played in my life raising me and teaching me values.

                  • mally el

                    You may be okay with these changes, Paul, but many of us will do our best to ensure that these words are nor erased or their definitions corrupted. A long time ago the Chinese realized the importance of husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister. They believed that it was only in primitive, uncivilized societies that marriage and family, and the relationships within them, were non-existent. This is how the civilized world sees it – except those that are turning their backs on it.

          • I don’t think so. You can’t force people to accept abnormal behavior.

      • Pau Tran

        Gay-marriage does pollute opposite-sex marriage as it opens door to incest-marriage, pedophiliac-marriage etc … I , for one, will not wish you well. However, civil-partnership is your constitutional right which I will not oppose.

        • thebentangle

          Paul, in all the states and countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, it has not led to incest-marriage or any of the other horrors you envision. You’re sounding overwrought and paranoid. Get a grip.

          • ekaneti

            give it time. Certainly Incest SSM should be allowed.

      • J G

        You won’t be married. 2 people of the same gender are incapable of marriage. I do wish you well. I wish you will repent and turn away from sin.

        • thebentangle

          Sorry to disappoint you, JG, but the certificate on our wall will say we are married under the laws of the state of Washington. You might as well get with the program now instead of waiting. I remember that in the late sixties, I swore I would never wear my hair short. My parents swore they would never accept integration.

          BTW, please explain to me what happens if I don’t “repent and turn away from sin.” Do I go to Hell and burn for eternity? Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth? Little demons poking me with red-hot spears?

          I think I can predict what will happen to you if you don’t repent and turn away from homophobia. You will become a relic and people will stop listening to you ranting and raving about us. The young people will just roll their eyes and walk away.

    • Marriage has already been redefined several times. Interracial marriage, marriage primarily for love instead of for family’s financial benefits, not being able to abuse wives, wives having freedom and not being commanded property, etc. Huge aspects of society have been redefined over and over again in the last year.

      You have made no argument of any real substance or impact that the gender aspect of your definition of marriage is actually important to it, so simply saying “don’t change it” is, frankly, meaningless considering that huge, great changes have been occurring in “traditional” parts of western societies for a millenium.

      Voters were defined in the United States of America as white property owners, the relationship of governments to their people has been redefined over and over again, the relationships between men and women has been redefined, how the mentally ill have been treated, social class, etc etc.

      Just like with these, you cant simply say “Dont change it! That’s how it is!” unless you give a good reason. What is from “nature” means little, and things like the strong ruling over the weak is quite “natural”, but we have done away with it in many ways. Cyanide is natural. You have made no argument whatsoever about how marriage is weakened by homosexuals, especially since this is about the state and society treat relationships regarding visitation rights etc and understanding what being homosexual actually means, it has nothing to do with the integrity of your relationship with your own spouse.

      Lastly, saying that marriage being so defined by gender is as important for society as gravity is important for our being is a HUGE claim. Where is your huge evidence to support your argument?

      • mally el

        Marriage has never been re-defined; it has always been between man and woman. Social issues have played a role in marriage as they have done in other areas of human endeavour. However, marriage has always been the human phenomenon that it is.

        As to the other question: What is it that provides our world with stability and continuity? The existence of phenomena we call gravity and time. Without gravity there would be no shape or cohesiveness, and without time we not have have the capacity to have a sequence of events – which is essential for change. In the same way marriage, which is built into our nature, is the only human relationship that naturally provides humans thus ensuring our existence, and the healthy realtionships and guardianship that exists in families benefits society.

  • Katy

    Thank you for an informative article about the defense of marriage in the U.S. St. Thomas More and St. John the Baptist gave their lives defending marriage. Their stand reminds us that marriage is at the heart of the church, because it is the symbol of the love between Christ and his church. Catholic should be aware that preserving the one man one woman marriage institution is important if they want to live in an America that affirms religious freedom and the family structure that best supports children and civilization. “If you surround an individual with a good family and a good society, that individual will find it easy to make right choices.” -Peter Kreeft

    • thebentangle

      Katy, Peter Kreeft’s maxim (If you surround an individual with a good family and a good society, that individual will find it easy to make right choices.) is very true, and it is one of the best arguments I can think of for supporting same-sex marriage. You must remember that gay individuals are no different from others in their needs for connection, continuity, and stability—goods that the family can provide. Encouraging gays and lesbians to construct families of their own is one of the best ways I know of to foster wise choices on their part.

      • Katy

        We all want connection, continuity, and stability—and need to follow a moral code to find these. Those that want to have multiple wives also claim that their lives would be better if their sexual lives were sanctioned. Or let’s take the financial arena. Engaging in greedy practices can provide for one’s family. Follow all your inclinations and your hearts and minds will follow. Nothing to judge but judgmentalism, right?

        When you refuse to let God define reality, truth and goodness for you (“objective truth”), *you* become the measure of all things. There are no limits on greed, lust and pride when there is “absolute relativism.”

        “But is not God a lover rather than a warrior? No, God is a lover who is a warrior. The question fails to understand what love is, what the love that God is, is. Love is at war with hate, betrayal, selfishness, and all love’s enemies. Love fights. Ask any parent. Yuppie-love, like puppy-love, may be merely “compassion” (the fashionable word today), but father-love and mother-love are war.” –Peter Kreeft

        • thebentangle

          Katy: To say that A and B share some properties is not to say that A and B are identical. Connection, continuity, and stability are properties that both I and Donald Trump want for our lives. But DT and I are not the same. DT is a greedy SOB, and I am not. Greed harms people; homosexuality does not. Polygamy harms both the women who are monopolized and the men whose pool of available females it restricts. Gay marriage brings two individuals together in loving commitment. Big differences there.

          Why did you go off on a tangent about “absolute relativism?” Who is absolutely relativistic? It seems you make a lot of rather mean-spirited assumptions about people who do not believe in your god.

          I agree with part of your last paragraph. Love can be at war with hate and all of love’s enemies. Love fights. That’s me. That’s why I am here.

          • Katy

            We agree that connection, continuity and stability are common human desires but do not agree about a moral code. I advocate for objective truth which has guided the U.S. since its foundation. No one is forced to be a Christian in this country. But I also believe no one should be forced to live according to the “relativism dogma” that relativists want.

            The two examples that I gave about greed and polygamy were meant to illustrate moral relativism in general. Not sure why that came across as mean-spirited to you. It is disrespectful to label Donald Trump as you have.

            “Greed harms people; homosexuality does not. Polygamy harms both the women who are monopolized and the men whose pool of available females it restricts.”

            Women monopolized….men restricted. Do you believe, in general, that open marriages (or partnerships) are licit and good? I dare say that this opinion is not uncommon among gay men.

            “Gay marriage brings two individuals together in loving commitment. Big differences there.”

            I will post again what I posted about same-sex marriage and children on Dale O’Leary’s article:
            This article states the obvious: “Study after study has found that children do best when they spend their entire childhood living with their married, biological parents.” Same-sex individuals raising children *always* separate offspring from either one or both of their biological parents. In order to accept your theory that gay parents are equivalent to biological parents we would need to accept that an adopted parent or adopted parents are equivalent to biological parents and then that the androgynous sexuality model should be equally supported by society as the complementary sexuality model. The androgynous understanding of sexuality is that the male and female are more or less interchangeable. The complementary model is where male and female sexual differences are seen as important and positive and as fundamental to reality and to the nature of each person.

            • Of course the ideal would be to have parents raising their biological children. Most children who are put up for adoption are in a situation that is not ideal for giving them a proper upbringing (or sometimes they may be conceived by parents who don’t have the resources to care for another child). For these children, the ideal does not work out so it happens that a second best solution (adoption) is what they get.

              It would be ideal if gay men and women could raise their biological children but as we know two men or two women can’t conceive without help from an additional person and this is often very costly. Rather than live a childless life, gay and lesbian couples decide to raise children through adoption, many providing homes for children who are otherwise not going to have the ability to grow up in a loving and nurturing home.

              Anytime someone suggests that it would be better for these children to not be raised by a same sex couple in this situation I sense a lack of understanding for the love and care that the children can receive from a loving same-sex couple.

              It is easy for a Catholic to say “Well the gay man should marry a woman and have his own biological children if he wants to raise kids.” But this is problematic in a number of ways, the least of which is the lack of proper attraction of this man towards his wife. To suggest that the sexual organs one is born with defines the entirety of their sexual attractions is to ignore the fact that gay men have zero sexual attraction to women and would not be satisfied in a life long relationship with a woman.

              • Katy

                “Many of the problems [of modern life] are the result of a false notion of individual freedom at work in our culture, as if we could be free only when rejecting every *objective norm* (emphasis mine) of conduct, refusing to assume responsibility or even refusing to put curbs on instincts and passions! Instead, true freedom implies that we are capable of choosing good without constraint. This is the truly human way of proceeding in the choices–big and small –which life puts before us.” -Blessed John Paul II

                When you refuse to let God define reality, truth and goodness for you
                (“objective truth”), *you* become the measure of all things (“moral relativism”).

                • And yet the Catholic Church expects an entire group of people (lesbian women and gay men) to be celibate in order to consider them moral. This goes against the first principle of the bible that it is not good for man to be alone. Imagine if someone told you that you would have to choose between marrying a woman and being celibate your entire life (I am assuming you are female). I doubt you would take very kindly to it. That is the essence of what is being told to gay and lesbian individuals by the church. It is a denial of objective reality to suggest that they should just marry someone of the opposite sex like straight people do.

                  • Katy

                    Blessed John Paul II’s Theology of the Body gives an overview about human sexuality and love. The Feast of the Holy Family was
                    celebrated in the church yesterday. Husband and wives, like Mary and Joseph, are designed by God to be the guardians of children. “The love, loyalty and dedication of Mary and Joseph are an example for all Christian couples, who are neither the friends nor masters of their children’s lives, but the guardians of this incomparable gift from God.” Pope Benedict XVI’s Vatican City Message for the Feast of the Holy Family

  • MAT

    Most people don’t believe that the Catholic Church’s teachings are about what is true – to be faithful to Christ and His teaching. They see the Church’s teaching purely from the perspective of power and politics. Not believing, it’s all therefore about winning. When there is no faith, the predisposition toward truth can be lacking or hindered. The resentment or opposition to Christ and His teaching runs counter to the search for truth. So many don’t believe in truth – it’s all relative. They believe in winning – in getting their way. So what are we left with? Devotion to utopia? Devotion to the state or to a political messiah? Sexual license? It’s not difficult to argue that the West and the U.S. are in moral decline which has resulted in economic decline.

  • Rob

    A boat is a boat. A car is a car.

    Both provide a means of transportation.

    The reality, though, is that a boat is a boat and a car is a car. We, as a society, have a common understanding of our experience of “boat,” and of our experience of “car” (and our experience of “transportation”), and we have defined those experiences so that they are commonly understood.

    A loving, committed relationship between two people is possible with or without marriage, and with our without sexual expression.

    But, marriage is what marriage is – the union of one man and one woman. The union of two same-gendered people cannot be called marriage.

    That doesn’t mean, though, that that same-gender union cannot be recognized by the state and derive all the financial and other temporal benefits comparable to traditional marriage. We just cannot call it marriage, because it is not. A boat is a boat and a car is a car. Some may suggest this is semantical. But I believe it is not. Both have some similar purposes, but they are not the same no matter how you slice it.

    Arguments against gay “marriage” that demonstrate a “slippery slope” potentiality are, in my opinion, not valid, for it could be argued that almost anything can cause that slippery slope – For instance, the high divorce rate.

    Since the beginning of humanity, people have been sexual. Since the beginning of humanity, I believe certain expressions of our sexual nature have been considered more moral or less moral than other expressions. It varies in time and from culture to culture. (This is true, also, in other human behaviors that are outside of the area of sexual expression!)

    No matter what, some people will always act out sexually in a manner that is not commonly accepted or expected. Sin (or at a very, very basic level, that which causes us to not live up to an ideal) is a reality.

    Married people sin. Marriages aren’t perfect. There are sexual sins happening in marriage all the time.

    I think it’s a fair statement to say that most people do not live up to the ideal (any ideal, really) much of the time (in all areas of life).

    Bottom line: Let’s not mix everything together. It’s complicated and complex enough – all the social, psychological, emotional, sexual and spiritual dimensions of our lives.

    Gay people ought to have some kind of civil union, should they so choose. But it cannot be marriage, as marriage is between a man and a woman. A boat is a boat, and not a car.

    As far as the Catholic teaching on marriage, I support it, and believe it to be based on an incredible and beautiful vision and ideal that demonstrates and symbolizes that humanity is made in the image of the creative nature of God, for in marriage, a man and a woman have the potentiality to live out committed love AND procreate. It is, though, an ideal. There are many Catholic marriages that are far from the ideal for many reasons.

    I’m not suggesting moral relativism here. I believe in objective truths. But I also can relate to human experience. I know many straight and gay people. And I know some gay people that are in love with each other. So – why ought they not be able to commit to each other in their own way, and derive civil (financial, health, legal, etc.) benefits from that commitment?

    The morality of any sexual expression between a committed gay couple is a separate issue. And the morality of sexual expression between a married couple is something different also. The morality of something, I think, is always something different than the nature of something.

    The Church wisely provides moral guidance and teachings that stress the ideal. God is the one ultimately who must judge what is in people’s hearts and actions.

    (Sinful actions are sinful whether they be sexual, physical, social or ethical. Sometimes, we get crazier about sexual sins. I don’t understand why. Sin is sin – none of it is good.).

    So – let us continue to allow gay civil unions, but, no matter how much anyone tries to make them marriages, they just cannot be. A boat is a boat, and not a car.

    • thebentangle

      Rob, thank you sharing your thoughts and for NOT resorting to the “slippery slope” argument, which is a type of logical fallacy often used against gay marriage. (I was relieved not to have to explain for the 583rd time why it is fallacious.)

      You seem to feel that gay marriage is sufficiently different from straight marriage that it should not be called “marriage.” You see the differences, and I see the similarities. Merriam-Webster’s already has two definitions for the word, as it has for many words, and the word “marriage” is now used for same-sex marriages in 12 countries and nine U.S. states.

      My expectation is that support for SSM will continue to grow. France and the U.K. are about to move in that direction, and we in this country will see another four or five states legalizing it in or before the next election cycle. The U.S. Supreme Court may also weigh in on the side of marriage equality.

      Language is something we share, and we cannot on our own decide what a word means. It means whatever people want it to mean, and meanings do change. All the time. Language is constantly in flux, reflecting changing attitudes and values. In some areas of the world, the word “marriage” has only the more restrictive meaning that you ascribe to it. In other parts of the world, especially Europe and Canada, it signifies a more inclusive category comprising same-sex and opposite-sex varieties.

      When you begin a sentence with “Since the beginning of humanity,” I know I am about to read an argument from tradition. However, that is also a logical fallacy, like the slippery slope argument. As much as you may cherish your traditions, they are not binding on me. Nor are they necessarily a good guide for our collective future.

      And finally, the argument about “not mixing everything together” is more about personal taste than about inherent value. As for myself, I love soups, salads, and stews.

      And finally, back to the car and boat thing. I’m not so sure that’s a good analogy. I would prefer bowls and cups, or cups and glasses, or glasses and vases. Did you know there is a whole body of psychological literature that studies the gradual transitions from bowls to cups and collects data about exactly what point the morphing cup is perceived as a bowl, and vice versa? Just google “When does a cup become a bowl?” and then select the second article from “Introduction to Psychology.”

      • mally el

        If you were to try to explain it for the 584th time it still would still be countered. Abortion provides a good example of the slippery slope. It was in the beginning granted for those whose lives were in danger. It then degenerated till it became a free license to kill their own babies without reason. granted scientists to experiment with surplus human embryos – human beings at the beginning stages of life. They then began cloning, designing, genetically modifying and also creating animal-human creatures. Yes, the slippery slope always work when we venture into immoral activities.

    • Voters were defined in the United States of America as white property
      owners, the relationship of governments to their people has been
      redefined over and over again, the relationships between men and women
      has been redefined, how the mentally ill have been treated, social
      class, etc etc.

      Marriage has already been redefined several times. Interracial
      marriage, marriage primarily for love instead of for family’s financial
      benefits, not being able to abuse wives, wives having freedom and not
      being commanded property, etc. Huge aspects of society have been
      redefined over and over again in the last millennium.

      You have made no argument of any real substance or impact that the
      gender aspect of your definition of marriage is actually important to
      it, so simply saying “don’t change it” is, frankly, meaningless
      considering that huge, great changes have been occurring in
      “traditional” parts of western societies for a millennium.

      The differences between a car and a boat are much greater than a gay marriage and a straight marriage. English words and words relating to society’s structure have shifted all the time. The idea that the gender aspect of marriage is so key to it that it cannot change seems simply iiloglcal to me, just like how the relationship between husbands and wives changed drastically from before to now, and I dont think the gender change is as big of a jump, especially since wives going from being property to being equals is a massive change.

      Also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliot-daley/gay-marriage-redefinition_b_1963636.html

      • mally el

        Not only is the gender aspect of marriage logical, it is absolutely fundamental. Only ignorance, arrogance and stupidness would drive us to think otherwise. The world community will never let it be any other way.
        The car and the boat are vehicles for transport. One is designed to run on the land, and the boat to move on water.
        Marriage happens when people from the two genders commit themselves to each other. The organs associated with these genders beautifully complement each other in a very meaningful way. It is designed in our nature. Homosexual relationships are just relationships – nothing more.

    • Katy

      The premise of the gay lobby is to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality. State supported civil unions should be avoided if at all possible since the goal by the “moral relativists” is to have these “evolve” into same-sex marriage. Laws = morality. Morality =conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Laws “teach” us how to behave in society. If same-sex marriage is “legal” then it follows that heterosexual relations do not have a special purpose or place in society and to teach otherwise is to discriminate. If the *absolute norms* do not apply in our society then the relativists can make the case that any “truth” they claim should be sanctioned. “Honor your mother and father” becomes you need to affirm any combination of individuals under the sun.

      • Kevin McCormick

        The danger is even graver still. The state sanctioning of same sex relationships as valid would be lead to violations against religious freedom. This is already happening in those societies where SSM is the law of the land. Preachers who speak against homosexual activity are being silenced, adoption services offered by Catholics are being shut down, those who offer marriage services are being sued for discrimination when they decline to participate in same sex ceremonies. This isn’t a matter of “live and let live.” The threat to faithful Catholics is very real.

        • Katy

          Catholic Charities in Massachusetts closed its doors for adoptions soon
          after the court there narrowly ruled for SSM. After the ruling, the legislature took steps to make sure that the electorate could not vote on the unpopular issue. When you see these kinds of things you are seeing the breakdown of democracy. Parents cannot pull their children from class in Massachusetts when issues of homosexuality, sexual orientation or same-sex marriage are to be discussed because it could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students.

          When objective truth is kicked out, power, not compassion rushes in to take its place. Are you aware of Colson’s Law? It states that cops and conscience are the only two shields against evil—the outer shield and the inner shield. As moral relativism softens conscience, it must toughen and multiply cops so that a society of relativism becomes a police state.

          • When Catholic Charities provide services for the general public they are bound by the same anti-discrimination laws that apply to all businesses. There would have been same-sex couples attempting to adopt children even if SSM had not been legalized in Massachusetts. Yet this example is brought up in states that already have civil unions as an argument against legalizing SSM. If a state already has civil unions, or even absent civil unions allows gay couples to adopt children then no service provided to the public can be denied to a small group of individuals. Blaming this on SSM is ignoring the fact that most states have anti-discrimination laws that protect gay and lesbian individuals from being refused services from places of public accommodation.

            • Katy

              In this clash between religious freedom and gay rights, Catholic Charities in the Boston Archdiocese withdrew from providing adoption services rather than to continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt. Before withdrawing, it sought legislation that would allow religious agencies to perform adoptions without violating their religious tenets but was unsuccessful.

              Statement by Archbishop of Boston Sean O’Malley in 2006:
              “Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago. As Fr. Bryan Hehir, President of Catholic Charities, and Mr. Jeffrey Kaneb, Chair of the Board, have assured all concerned parties, Catholic Charities will fulfill its contract obligations to the state during the time of withdrawing from adoption services, and will always hold the interests of the children to be paramount.”

  • DCH

    Face reality, SSM is occuring in nine states or jurisdictions. It is NEVER going to go away in those places and only will expand. Once CA goes over later this year, fully 1/3 of the US population will live in places with marriage equality. As time passes people realize that nothing bad happens to them as a result of other people getting married. Mostly its people you don’t know or ever meet. The second stroke will be the need to recognize the legal marriages across state lines as ALL states do for hetreo marriages today. That will be an easy win as it will to provide a good legal reasoning for denying equality to one couple married in a another state and recognize another. Religious arguments are meaningless when it comes to tax and legal aspects of marriage.

  • Chauncey Freeman

    When fascism comes to America it will be carrying a pink swastika wrapped in a rainbow flag. And it has.

  • ekaneti

    Fact there are even fence sitters is a problem for traditional marriage. Fence sitters will come down on the side of same sex marraige

  • ekaneti

    It is interesting that those who think marriage is an outdated obsolete institution are the biggest fans of SSM

    • Ray Olson

      Where on earth did you get that idea? Names and references, please.

  • There are so many falsehoods here,I can only address a few:

    1)There’s more support than antagonism, but not a majority on either side, given the nearly one-quarter who remain on the sidelines.

    Not true. There’s a bare majority that support. More tellingly is the age breakdown, which you conveniently ignore. Young people overwhelmingly support full same-sex marriage.

    2)You conveniently don’t mention The Polling Company is a Republican organization whose founder and head famously compared attacks on Todd Aikin to the siege of David Koresh’s followers. Uh-huh, real reliable.

    3) This is a real head scratcher. You say supporters of gay marriage don’t want referenda votes, which have been supported by their opponents. Then you mention that every such vote went to gay marriage this year. Now, maybe you could actually think (?!) and do some real research and you MIGHT find out that they oppose ballot initiatives because they don’t believe a human rights issue should depend on a popular vote. that said, they are perfectly happy to take it the polls if that happens.

    4) You know that’s a bald lie about the NY State senators. The ones who lost office did for peripheral reasons relating to others issues, misconduct and the Conservative Party running a third candidate and thus splitting the ticket. Thus, in most of those cases, an EVEN MORE PRO-GAY MARRIAGE Democratic candidate lost. Yeah, that’s a real defeat for the LGBT side, isn’t it?

    I could go on but your research, thinking and writing are so shallow that it’s probably pearls before swine.

  • As you say, “Psychologically, it matters how questions are asked.”
    Then you cite this: “A national post-election survey conducted on Election Day by The Polling Company, Inc., showed that 60% of American voters agree that “marriage is between one man and one woman,” while only 34% disagree.”
    I’m a gay man who totally supports marriage equality. Why should I be treated differently than someone else? But even I would answer Yes to this question, as phrased. Of course marriage is between one man and one woman. But it can also be between two men or two women.
    Are you trying to pull another Regnerus here? Shoddy research, with the results (* gasp! *) echoing precisely what your check signers are looking for? In your case, it’s not even the check signers – it’s the body of which you are the president. You are paying people to come up with this kind of garbage.

    • ugh

      you knew what that phrase meant…. smh…

  • alanaforsyth

    Homosexuality involves the wrong usage of the body parts God gives human beings. Homosexual activity is unhygienic, disgusting, demoralizing, and destructive. It is aberrant behavior over which human beings do have a choice. It’s one thing to have the disordered orientation, but one can choose not to act on it. What men do to one another in homosexual acts is disease-producing and evil.

  • Katy

    Moral relativists advocating for same-sex marriage claim that objective truth is narrow-minded and should be replaced with their new dogma. The dogma is that changing the gender make up in marriage is good for children and society and that the gay lobby’s beliefs about raising families and sexuality are superior.

    They argue here that divorces will decrease, consensus should be our guide, the understanding that marriage is monogamous will not change, cherished words like mother and father will not go away, and democratic principles like religious liberty will not be threatened. The relativist persuades with rhetoric like “face the reality,” “ideals are good but not in this case,” and taking a moral stand is “oppressive” to him for he is a “victim.” But if you examine the rhetoric, look at the context of their statistics or evidence, how they are conducted, or make common sense projections, the picture becomes clearer.

    In the poetic drama, Peer Gynt by Henrik Ibsen, a man is portrayed who is put together like an onion—layer upon layer of “skin,” with no core, no center, no substance. When you peel an onion, you can unravel the skin until there is nothing left. This metaphor is a good
    one to describe the arguments for same-sex marriage. These arguments are
    pretense and show, and change over and over again as a means of manipulating the people around them.

    Truth, goodness and beauty should not be forsaken even if the relativists despise these.

  • matt227

    This article reminds of me of Karl Rove on election night. It is actually pitiful.