When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Starting the first of the New Year, I will be resuming this blog with Monday through Friday comments. Selling our home, a move to a new city, and family health issues kept me away for much too long. I look forward to resuming these pages and hearing from you. In the meantime, I will comment on a few important issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

Here we go again!

It is said that the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism.  Today, it is hiding behind the thin veil of sanctimony disguised as "the will of the people."  Whenever the majority votes to deny certain minorities the rights the majority enjoys, it's always "the will of the people." This solemnly uttered bit of piety is found in abundance whenever a state amendment against gay marriage is overturned by a court. It hit its highest decibel when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned California's Prop 8. Some people need to be informed that America is not a simple democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic.  That means that no matter what the majority wants, it cannot be granted if it oppresses the minority. That is, in large measure, what our constitution is for.

So, yesterday, when a federal judge struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, outraged local officials trotted out the canard that "the will of the people" had once again been overturned. It should be noted that when the 14th Amendment was passed, it became THE HIGHEST WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that the majority may not act to deny rights to the minority that they, themselves, enjoy. As state after state make same-sex marriage legal, largely on the basis of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, it is inevitable that the Justices of SCOTUS will eventually make marriage equality the law of the land, if the rest of the states don't beat them to it.

The federal judge overturning the Utah state ban made it effective immediately, so same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses and the mayor of Salt Lake City (no less) performed the first legal ceremony in the state. This will not be without opposition from the powers that be. Both Utah's governor and attorney general are pursuing whatever legal options they have, but their prospects are bleak.

Whenever an unjust law is overturned by a judge, we hear the accusation, "activist judges!" Yes, indeed. These judges are actively defending the highest will of the people as understood in the 14th Amendment.

The Neanderthals Are Still Among Us

Rev. Steve Kindle

Exec. Dir. of Clergy United

www.clergyunited.org

With my apologies to Neanderthals!

One of the reasons I wrote my book is that the chief reason obtaining gay rights has been slow is because it has taken time for the American (and world) public to recognize that they are as normal as any other form of humanity. So I took pains to show just how normal nonheterosexuals are. Due to the many LGBTs who have come out over the years, with the attendant discovery that they are our brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, and yes, our mothers and fathers, we have learned just how normal they are. In fact, their absolute commonality with everyone is seen in the fact that they are among us, have been among us and we didn't even know it! We owe a huge debt of gratitude to out LGBTs for making this huge leap in our consciousness possible, and welcome.

But there continues to be a small but noisy segment of our population that refuses to accept the facts. Every professional organization that has studied homosexuality for decades has given LGBTs a clean bill of health, psychologically, religiously, sociologically, medically and even as parents. There is no place to go anymore to support gay unacceptability; all the harbors are filled with positive voices. In such a dilemma, what do the negative voices do? They resort to the last refuge of scoundrels: name calling and outright lying. If you don't have the facts to back you up, sling mud. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decisions, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote, “The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time." It should also be noted that the "slippery slope" argument, is resorted to when all other arguments fail.

Interestingly, "polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality" are largely heterosexual deviances. The notion that gays were pedophiles was put to bed decades ago, but it's a handy argument for the uninformed to keep gays from teaching school and out of leadership roles in the Boy Scouts. But it's a lie. Gays are as upset with pedophelia as everyone else with a clear morality.

On CNN, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Wolf Blitzer,“You’re going to see a loss of parental rights, as children are taught in school morals that are contradictory to their parents’, religious liberty loss from business owners: bakers, florists, and others who will be forced to comply with a different view of marriage as well as even churches in some places, religious organizations losing their tax exemptions because they fail to comply with the force of the state in terms of redefining marriage.” Now that's a nightmare situation, for sure.  But is it true?  Permit me to quote from my book (as I'm against reinventing the wheel).

[These charges are] generally held by constitutional scholars to be a red herring.  When New York legalized same-sex marriage, for example, they included broad protections for religious and charitable organizations that were actually found unnecessary, as the protections are inherent in the U.S. Constitution.   

On the other hand, whenever minorities are granted rights long withheld from them, this means that the majority loses some of theirs.  Hotels, restaurants and other businesses that serve the public are no longer able to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, regardless of how the owners feel.  Gone are the “Whites Only” counters, “restricted clubs” (no Jews allowed), and red-lined neighborhoods.  Most of us feel that whatever losses ensued is America's gain.  Should the Supreme Court uphold same-sex marriage, life in America will go on pretty much as usual, with the exception that LGBTs will no longer be denied equal rights with the rest of us. 

Just as schools had to begin to recognize the equality of the races, yes, equality of same-sex relationships with heterosexual relationships, including in the raising of children will be taught.  Because it's true.  The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the Academy of Pediatrics all are on record as approving homosexuality as perfectly normal and as capable of entering any human relationship as any heterosexual.  This includes child rearing. 

It seems that we will have to put up with this uninformed nonsense for a while. In the meantime, more and more gays and lesbians will come out, more and more people will find gays as normal as the next person, more and more will we find the excessive complaints of this stubborn subculture irrelevant. Gay equality will win the day, but we must always bear in mind Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation that "Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right."

Yes, there is much work left to do. Let's get going!

Preparing for the Supreme Court’s Decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution?

~ Justice Antonin Scalia (This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v. Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws)

First, America needs a civics lesson
Contrary to the National Organization for Marriage’s wishes and all others who were disappointed when California’s Proposition 8 was struck down, and feel abused, the people DO NOT get to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not. Fortunately, we live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.  For in a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want to cut off the heads of the other 49%, for whatever reason, it would happen.  Our Constitution forbids majority coercion of the minority and in fact was created, in no small part, to protect the rights of the minority. So if, say, California passes a proposition that provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” the fact that the majority of voters voted yes does not mean it passes constitutional muster.  The same holds true for DOMA. That’s why, for those who are opposed to marriage equality, DOMA is not enough and only a Constitutional amendment will do.

Ironically, if we were to let the people decide, as NOM would have it, the tide has turned and the majority of Californians and Americans are now in favor of same-sex marriage.  Given their favorable attitude toward LGBTs, when the Millennial generation assumes power, this will be a long forgotten era of American history.  Just as today when young people are told of Jim Crow and the struggle for Civil Rights, and they are mystified as how this could ever have been, so too will generations from now find it hard to believe that gay people couldn’t get married.

How DOMA and Prop 9 control the lives of LGBTs up to now
The federal Defense of Marriage Act effectively does two things. First, it defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is either husband or wife.  Second, it allows states the right to decline to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states.

The federal General Accounting Office identified “1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor”. This shuts out LGBTs from all federal benefits accorded to opposite-sex couples, including income tax breaks, Social Security survivor’s benefits, and health care. The GAO upgraded the number of benefits to 1,139 in 2003.

In California, Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment, passed in 2008, which said marriage defined as “only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. There was a window from June 16 to November 5, 2009 when same-sex marriage was legal and these marriages continue to be legal and likely will not be affected by SCOTUS’s ruling.

Possible Supreme Court outcomes

Most court watchers count the possible outcomes as four or five, reducing the likely outcomes to three. They range in scope from total victory for marriage equality across the board, to the status quo remaining in place. We will look at each outcome from best to worst, at least in the eyes of supporters of same-sex marriage.

DOMA and Proposition 8 are both struck down
Marriage would become the legal right of every couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Although this is the least likely outcome, it is possible. It is, of course, the most desirable outcome for those of us working for marriage equality. The reality that no couple in America could be denied the full dignity and rights presently accorded only to opposite-sex couples would mean that LGBTs are no longer second-class citizens.
A narrow interpretation would restore same-sex marriage rights to California and confer federal marriage benefits to all legally married same-sex couples throughout America. It would not affect marriage bans in other states; they would remain intact.

DOMA struck down, but Prop 8 upheld
Legally married same-sex couples in California and elsewhere will begin receiving the 1,139 federal marriage benefits. However, same-sex marriage will not be legal in California as well as the other states with similar bans. Those Californians legally married in 2009 will most likely not have their marriages made null and void.

Prop 8 struck down, but DOMA upheld
With the demise of Prop 8, marriage equality will be reinstated in California, and may overturn similar bans in place in other states. However, legally married same-sex couples will be denied all federal rights and benefits related to marriage. Second-class citizenship will continue.

We may know the outcomes as soon as tomorrow.  When the decisions are made public, I will post a column on where we go from here.

(This post was adapted from my book, Marriage Equality: Why same-sex marriage is good for the church and nation found here: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage-church/dp/1484967127/ref=)

"They also serve who only stand and wait"

After today, all that can be done, at least in the courts, will be over.  The arguments will have been made, the justices will retire to their chambers and by the end of June we will know the fate of our LGBT family, friends, coworkers and fellow Americans.  For many of us it will be an excruciatingly long time.  As I listen to my body's reaction too all of this, I find myself feeling much as I did as a child anticipating the arrival of Santa Claus, or the first summer day in the swimming pool.  It was almost unbearable; yet Santa did come and go, and the summers dragged on.  But much more is a stake than getting that nice new bike or meeting with friends for a dunking contest.  Not knowing, when we know only too well how necessary the defeat of Prop 8 and DOMA are, added to the mystifying awareness that America is now only beginning to wake up to LGBT injustice, makes one grieve.  

I don't even want to think about what to do should the Court not rule in our favor.  It will be like how WWII was waged in the Pacific, beach head by beach head, atoll by atoll, island by island.  But in this case it will be State by State.  This will be enormously expensive both in money and effort.  The good news is that DOMA likely will fall.  Should Prop 8 only be limited to California, then when each State approves gay marriage, the 1011 Federal benefits now denied will be extended to all in same-sex marriages.  This is to be celebrated.

Americans are getting a world-class education in gay rights.  America will never be the same, and will eventually, say, 20 years from now, find its way to make LGBTs full citizens. It's this unnecessary interim that's so devastating.  How many couple's hopes will be dashed?  How many more children will be subject to ridicule? How many more families will have to live without the protections that heterosexual couples enjoy every day?  

I'm still holding out for a complete sweep of victory.  The signs are impossible to read with any assurance, but nothing has been ruled out as yet.  As David Boies put it, "The most remarkable thing that happened in there was there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay marriage."  I remember the day in 1954 when the decision in Brown v. Board of Education was announced that ended segregation.  This was not a popular decision, yet it was made. When Loving v. Virginia (IN 1967!)  struck down miscegenation laws allowing interracial marriage, the vast majority of the country was appalled.  So especially when the majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage and gay rights over all, the Court is perfectly situated to do the right thing.  So I remain hopeful.

To really appreciate the title of this blog, we need to recall John Milton's poem, "On His Blindness."  

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait." 

Wait we must; yet let us listen to Patience who counsels against those thousands who "post o'er land and ocean without rest."  Why is this Patience's work to counsel us to stand and wait? I think it's to remind us that, as Martin Luther King, put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  In other words, not everything depends upon us; let us pause for the moment and let the universe do its thing.  It just may be that we will need to get going soon enough as it it.  

Here's a great summary of the events of yesterday from David Boies and Ted Olson

22 Reasons Why DOMA and Prop 8 Need to Be Declared Unconstitutional

And Same-sex Marriage Be Made Available Nationwide

1.   It's the right thing to do
2.   It will strengthen marriage all around
3.   LGBT families need the protection of legal marriage 
4.   LGBT partners need the protection of legal marriage
5.   LGBTs deserve the status of normal and worthy citizens that marriage bestows
6.   It will diminish the need for sham marriages and resultant divorces
7.   SCOTUS will be on the right side of history
8.   It’s inevitable; if not now it will happen eventually, so why wait?
9.   More orphaned children will find happy families
10. It resolves one more remaining justice issue in favor of equality
11. America can move on to other issues
12. We can retire right wing hypocrites who lecture us on morality
13. Maybe Maggie Galagher will go away?
14. Marriage is much more than about procreation, or, often, not about it at all
15. Republicans are even determined to make this a non-issue
16. I honors the Golden Rule
17. It in no way harms heterosexual marriage
18. Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of LGBT Couples
19. Love matters
20. "Separate but equal" was tried and failed
21. Did I say it’s the right thing to do?

And finally, so Associate Justice Antonin Scallia has to eat these words:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'”. [This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws.]

Yes, just "what justification could there possibly be", indeed?

Here's a little bit of what SCOTUS will hear today (from 

David Boies on "Meet the Press")

Okay, I cribbed this next list from StopGeek.com.  It's hilarious, and give us pause at our own shortsightedness.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

DOMA and Prop 8: A Lesson in Civics

With America's, and perhaps most of the world's, attention on the United States Supreme court this week, we will get an answer to a question that most Americans only vaguely understand:  "How can the vote of the majority be set aside?  The people have spoken, how can an unelected court go against public opinion, one enshrined in a majority vote?"  That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the frustration for those who conceived of and fought for California's Proposition 8.

Here's a recap of how the amendment  has fared.

Proposition 8 - which, for California only, defines marriage as between one man and one woman  - passed by 53% of California voters in 2008.  The United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari, which will be heard on Tuesday March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court Justices are expected to issue their ruling pertaining to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 by late June 2013. The ruling by the US Supreme Court may set precedent not only in California, but nationally.

Prop 8 passed by a 4% majority only to have the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put it on hold.  The eventuality is strong that the US Supreme Court may make it null and void with the attendant possibility that prohibiting same-sex marriage may become unconstitutional in every state in the USA.

A blogger voiced his profound anger not long after its passing.  Here is a comment to it:

"Those are some mighty strong words and accusations you're tossing around based on the CA government (and law) following it's defined process for letting people participate in a democratic republic. What do you prefer - the CA supreme court tossing out the results of a vote presented to the entire state? That borders dangerously close to very non-democratic governmental ideas."

So, it's "non-democratic" for a court to toss out the majority's vote.  As a Californian of long standing, I bear witness to many conversations that suggest that this notion is wide spread. This commentator got one thing right, we are a democratic republic.  In a pure democracy, as the saying goes, 51% of the people could vote to cut off the heads of the 49% and it would be legal (and done!). This notion became encapsulated as "the tyranny of the majority."  Great thinkers from Plato to John Stuart Mill and Tocqueville warned us of this and provided several ways to insure that governments would not be capable of such mendacity. Two are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: separation of powers and representative government.

This was not lost on the plaintiffs bringing the case to the Supreme Court. “If we've learned anything through this journey, it's that when the minority rights are being oppressed by a majority the court is supposed to step in, and some times it's not always popular for them to do so,” Jeff Zarrillo said. “We would expect the court to step in and right these wrongs." Exactly.  This is the proper recourse when minorities are pushed around by the majority.

The fact that we have a constitution at all is the most important defense against tyranny. The cry we hear so often, widely credited to John Adams, “We are a nation of laws and not of men,” is another way of saying, we are a constitutional republic.  Men and women don't tell us what to do, our Constitution does.  What is going on this week at SCOTUS is nothing more or less than laws deciding our fate.  (I am not so naive as to believe that the Court can be so objective as to rule out sentiment, prejudice, and other human considerations, but trust that they do their best to hold them at bay.)

This basic American value was clearly illustrated this weekend on "Meet the Press." Here's a snippet of host David Gregory's interview with David Boies, who is arguing the case against Prop 8 tomorrow.  Gregory  pointed out all the states that currently have bans on same-sex marriage and asked , "Aren't you effectively asking the Court to say, with one stroke of the pen, we're going to invalidate what those states have done?"

Replied Boies: "Every time the Supreme Court makes a constitutional decision, it’s making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. We've done that with race, we've done that with women; we've done that with every discriminated class."

So the next time you hear someone say that "the courts have usurped the people's will" one more time, gently remind them that the very fact they do this is precisely because of "the will of the people."  It's called the Constitution of the United States.

Analysis of Supreme Court Hearings on Same-sex Marriage Issues

The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments on California's Prop 8 and DOMA.  Here is the breakdown on the current situation from The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

High Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases
LEGAL REPORT March 20, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments in a pair of potentially groundbreaking same-sex marriage cases. On March 26, the court will hear a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2008 that amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. On March 27, the court will hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

People have been fighting over same-sex marriage in courtrooms around the country for more than 20 years. Until recently, however, most of the action has taken place in state courts. The Supreme Court’s decision to take the DOMA case (United States v. Windsor) and the Proposition 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) shifts the judicial focus from state to federal courts. It also raises the stakes: While state court rulings impact a particular state, federal cases involve federal constitutional principles that could apply nationwide, as discussed in a recent Pew Research Center legal analysis of the two cases.

While the Supreme Court has an opportunity in these cases to rule on core constitutional questions, that doesn’t mean it necessarily will. Indeed, the court could decide that the parties opposing same-sex marriage lack the right to defend Proposition 8 and DOMA in court (a legal concept known as “standing”). If standing is granted, it still is possible that the court will not address the broad constitutional question of whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution and will choose instead to rule more narrowly in both cases.

The DOMA case (Windsor) does not directly address the question of whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to wed. The case involves a different constitutional question: Does the federal government’s treatment of gays and lesbians under DOMA discriminate against them in such a way as to violate their constitutional rights?

The Proposition 8 case (Perry) might offer a better vehicle for the court to address the core question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. That’s because it involves a decision by a state, California, to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying. But even in this case, the court could strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling on the broader constitutional question. Indeed, even if the court were to strike down Proposition 8 in Perry, some legal scholars believe it still might not use the case as a vehicle to rule broadly on the constitutionality of restrictions on same-sex marriage and instead might craft a narrower decision that allows most states to decide their own marriage policies.

The Perry Case  
How could the court strike down Proposition 8 and still give other states a free hand to set their own marriage policies? The answer lies in Proposition 8’s unique history. Proposition 8 was approved by California voters six months after the state’s highest court had ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to marry – and after thousands of same-sex couples took advantage of this ruling and got married. In an earlier lower court decision in this case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) that California cannot single out a minority group and remove an existing right (in this case, the pre-Proposition 8 right of same sex couples to marry) without the government first showing that it had a rational or legitimate basis for this discriminatory action – something the state of California failed to do, according to the court of appeals. 

If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit’s ruling, and uses the same legal rationale to do so, it would not undermine other states’ bans on same-sex marriage. A narrow decision of this sort would prevent only states that have already granted marital rights to gays and lesbians from subsequently taking them away. Of course, if the high court upholds Proposition 8, it will, by definition, have effectively ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not protect same-sex couples against state laws prohibiting them from marrying.

The Windsor Case  
While the Supreme Court could use Windsor to decide whether the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry, many legal scholars believe the high court is more likely to focus on whether DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians, rather than on whether there is a right to same-sex marriage. Indeed, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF), in its earlier decision in Windsor striking down DOMA, ruled that the statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory.

The Big Picture  
Because same-sex marriage involves a contentious social issue, the arguments to the high court and its rulings in Perry and Windsor are expected to receive a tremendous amount of attention. Indeed, taken together, these decisions are almost certain to become the most important same-sex marriage rulings to date. Until now, the most significant same-sex marriage ruling occurred in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state’s highest court) said that the state’s constitution granted gays and lesbians the right to marry. As a result of this decision, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Since 2003, eight other states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington State – as well as the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Bills to legalize same-sex marriage currently are being considered in three additional states – Illinois,Rhode Island and Minnesota. By contrast, over the last two decades 30 states have added language to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

According to polling from the Pew Research Center, public attitudes toward same-sex marriage haveshifted markedly over the past decade. Polling conducted in 2003 found that most Americans (58%) were opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and just a third (33%) were in favor. A new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17, 2013, among 1,501 adults nationwide, confirms that these figures have flipped, with 49% supporting same-sex marriage and 44% opposed.

In recent years, many political leaders have voiced support for letting gays and lesbians marry legally. In May 2012, for instance, President Barack Obama declared that he supports same-sex marriage.Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996, recently wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post urging the Supreme Court to overturn the law. And in a video released on March 18,former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced she supports same-sex marriage, both “personally and as a matter of policy and law.” 

Some Republicans also recently have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. In February, for example, a group of prominent Republicans (PDF), including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8. And Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who had co-sponsored the original DOMA bill when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives, also recently announced that he now supports same-sex marriage. In a March 15 op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch, Portman said he made his decision because one of his sons is gay and he “wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love.”  

This report was written by David Masci, Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. 

Photo credit: iStockPhoto

The Last Respectable Prejudice

In a future post I will share the many great resources for following the latest news and commentary on same-sex marriage and related issues that are available online.  My hope is that they will inform your day as they do mine.  This blog, however, is not so much devoted to current events as it is to think about them.  So my posts are more like "think pieces" than news stories.  We need both and I have chosen to present commentary.

The Gay Rights Struggle Is the Moral Equivalent of the Civil Rights Struggle of the Last Century

Part 1

As for today's subject, I do not want to leave the impression that LGBTs have suffered and continue to suffer to the same degree as African Americans have.  There was no refuge in the safety of the closet for Blacks in America; they had no place to hide. Nor have LGBTs had to endure centuries of slavery.  On the whole, life in America has been relatively good for gays as compared to many other countries around the world, and certainly when compared to America's racial minorities.

Nevertheless, in the words of Byrne Fone, in Homophobia: A History: 

"Indeed, in modern Western society, where racism is disapproved, anti-Semitism is condemned, and misogyny has lost its legitimacy, homophobia remains, perhaps the last acceptable prejudice.”  

The fight for African American equality began in slavery, is embedded in the Declaration of Independence, ushered in the Civil War, was enshrined in the 14th Amendment, endured through Jim Crow, made huge gains in the 1950s and 60s, and finally was legally secured with the passing of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Bill of 1965.  A host of other legislation, both in Congress and in the states, dealt with issues from school bussing, interracial marriage, and other discriminatory practices.  Although prejudice endures, legal discrimination is markedly on the decline in America.

The fight for LGBT equality is more recent and follows a much less ascendant trajectory. Gays still can be fired for their sexual orientation without recourse in 29 states; transgenders, in 34.  Lynchings have all but ended in the South, but LGBT's lives are taken almost every day.  According to the Leadership Conference, in a report issued in 2010,

Reported hate crimes committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation increased in 2007 to 1,265, the highest level in five years. Of all hate crimes reported in 2007, the proportion committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals rose to 16.6 percent, also the highest level in five years. According to the FBI's HCSA reports, gay men and lesbians have consistently been the third most frequent target of hate violence over the past decade.

As early as the founding of Virginia, gay sex was a capital offence.  It wasn't until 2003 that sodomy laws were rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. The years in between made gay love go underground to survive, and many are still living in the closet to protect themselves.  

Racial slurs are not uttered in polite company these days, but gay slurs still are. You don't hear racist jokes much any more, but gay jokes are still fair game.  Where conservative Christians used to denigrate African Americans by teaching that God desires segregation and approves of slavery, they have largely repudiated those teachings.  But they are free to claim that "God hates homosexuality," and LGBTs are hell bound.  

In 1964, the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, allowing African Americans the right to marry anyone they love.  Same-sex marriage is only legal in nine states, but Federal benefits are denied them with the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act.  If the Supreme Court does not make same-sex marriage a universal right in America, it will have to be won state by state and DOMA will have to be overturned.  

So the fight for gay rights parallels in many ways the fight for racial equality: legal restrictions that bar them from full access to rights given to others, societal contempt that often leads to violence, and laws that keep them from marrying, to name just a few.  These struggles are moral equivalents because of this one fact: LGBTs are as fully human and as entitled to live as equals with all Americans, just as we have finally realized about racial minorities.  More and more Americans are convinced that this is the case, with 58% now favoring equality across the board. If the Supreme Court feels the same way, all that will be left will be the same as when  racial minorities received full rights: we will have to discover that there should never have been such a fuss in the first place.

TOMORROW: Part 2, The Moral Implications That Follow from This Equivalency 

The following is a press release by the American Sociological Association sent yesterday. It should put to bed any remaining doubt that the academic community, the only body qualified to speak authoritatively on issues regarding scientific inquiry, is solidly behind same-sex marriage and gay normalcy in general. It speaks clearly for itself; I have no need to comment. Those who continue to foster contrary arguments do so from a position contrary to the facts. We will have to look to other motives to determine why.

_______________________________________________________

ASA Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Research Shows Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being

WASHINGTON, DC, February 28, 2013 — The American Sociological Association (ASA) weighed in on the gay marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court today, filing an amicus brief outlining social science research that shows “children fare just as well” when raised by same-sex or heterosexual parents.

“The results of our review are clear,” said ASA President Cecilia Ridgeway. “There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being.”

Founded in 1905, the ASA has more than 14,000 members and a long history of presenting the consensus research findings of sociologists to American courts for their use in evaluating evidence and legal issues. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages already legalized under the law of several states, and Proposition 8, which revoked the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

“An issue at the heart of these cases is whether family composition, per se, affects the well-being of children and thus, provides a justification for limiting the right to marry,” said Ridgeway, the Lucie Stern Professor of Social Sciences in the Sociology Department at Stanford University. “This core question is an empirical one and is the subject of a broad range of social science research. As a scientific body, ASA has a duty to provide the court with a systematic and balanced review of the evidence to assess what the consensus of scholarly research has shown.”

In their briefs to the court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is defending DOMA, the Hollingsworth Petitioners, which are defending Proposition 8, and their respective supporters assert that children fare better with opposite-sex parents than with same-sex parents.

“When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined—which the ASA has done—the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents,” states the ASA amicus brief. “Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts and do not justify upholding DOMA and Proposition 8.”

Wendy Diane Manning, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Center for Family & Demographic Research, and Co-Director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, led ASA’s examination of the social science evidence. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP of New York City served as counsel to the ASA on the brief.

____________________________________________

The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by society.

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 4 Legitimize Same-sex Marriage

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

The following quote is another of critic John Rankin's notions of the gay agenda: 
"Redefine 'marriage' to include 'same-sex' relationships."

As I indicated in a previous post, the redefinition of marriage has been a continuous pursuit over many millennia.  Marriage has never always been between one man and one woman, as many critics of same-sex marriage would have us believe. They have recently modified it to say that it has always been a matter of opposite sexes marrying, and even that is false.  True, same-sex marriages are rare among Western societies, but they are found even today.  Their bottom line position has become that, well, Jesus was in favor of only one man and one woman marrying, so we should be too.  That is a far cry from their original position that it has always been that way.

But we are not talking about what the church should believe and how it should act in matters of marriage. I will only summarize the argument here, but not all biblical scholars agree that Christian marriage can be only between one man and one woman.  (You'd be surprised how many Christian missionaries allow converts in polygamous marriages to continue in them.)  

It's one thing to say there is a norm and quite another to say that that norm is universal.  It is the norm that most humans are right handed, but it is not universal. It is a norm that most Mexican speak Spanish, but not a universal. It is the norm that Christian heterosexuals are expected to marry in the opposite sex, have children, and not divorce.  As I say, this is the heterosexual norm.  But what of nonheterosexuals?  How can we expect them to conform to a norm that is not possible for them. See a fuller treatment of this reasoning here. 

As much as the critics of the gay agenda would like to believe that America is a Christian nation, it isn't.  Israel is a Jewish nation, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation, but the USA is a democratic republic, presided over by the Constitution.  So whatever Christianity may say or not say, its rules for itself are confined to itself and are prohibited from being forced on an unwilling public (insofar as it is unwilling). Therefore, to insist, rightly or wrongly that the Bible says marriage can only be between one man and one woman, we respectfully say, you have no standing in this decision.  It is not for you to decide.

What the Supreme Court of the US is wrestling with is not what does the Bible say about marriage, but what does the US Constitution tell us we must do with respect to same-sex marriage and DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act).  Children entering high school are astonished to learn from their history of the United States, that marriage between separate races was once illegal in many parts of our nation.  It's virtually unthinkable that as late as 1964, states could prohibit two people in love, but of different races, to marry. Interestingly, these same students are on record as overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.  Do you suppose there is a connection?  Known injustices have a way of translating outrage against other injustices.  

The Mexican Supreme Court today (February 19,2013) produced an opinion that make same-sex marriage legal there.  Interestingly, they cited the logic of the US Supreme Court in its striking down of laws banning interracial marriage.  Here's the part of the Mexican courts opinion that bears on our point:

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does not grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.

It may be that SCOTUS returns to its own logic in the Loving case and ends one more inequitable slice of American life and makes same-sex marriage legal across the nation.

I have to believe (the evidence is just too obvious) that the reason so many people fight against this inequality is that they really don't believe that LGBTs deserve equal standing with heterosexuals.  That they are somehow less than human, even, and to grant them this right would be to dignify the undignifiable.  The Roman Catholic Church considers LGBTs "intrinsically disordered." Those who are Christians and feel this way justify themselves, often, with the belief that anyone who is destined to hell should not be afforded any heaven on earth. What a pity; and not just for LGBTs, but for those miserable Christians who must detest life here on earth.  No wonder they can't wait for Jesus to return and destroy it all.

But for others of us Christians who fight daily for the realized dignity of LGBTs, we look to the day when no one is denied their rightful place in that great community called humanity. Even in the church as well as in the nation and world.  

TOMORROW: The Gay Agenda, Pt.5 

Here's where I part company with Rankin's listing of the gay agenda: "Elevate 'gay' relationships to a place of moral superiority for the wider culture to honor and emulate."

What to Say to Your Friends about Same-sex Marriage, Pt. 2 -- A Closer Look at the Bible and Same-sex Marriage

(The features of this article are about the history of marriage in the West; Eastern customs are another matter)

When was the last time you heard anyone actually ask the intended's father for her hand in marriage?  Even better, if asked and denied, did it really make any difference?  The wedding would surely have gone ahead without the father's permission.

This quaint courtesy is a holdover from the days when father's actually controlled the destiny of their daughters (and sons, for that matter).  Marriage only recently has become the business of the couple alone.  In the days of the Patriarchs, in and out of the Old Testament, the father arranged for husbands for his daughters, and unless there was a need for a special alliance outside the immediate family, the bride usually was a first cousin, even a half-sister. The purpose of marriage was to continue the name of the father through his sons, and provide assistance for the family business and protection in old age.

Another quaint custom not often heard of these days is the "hope chest."  Young women would store away items for their household, such as linens, trousseau, and other finery, for their new home with their (hoped for) husband.  This was the final remnant of the "dowry" that figured into ancient and early modern marriages.      Marriageable women would show their desirability as a marriage choice by the contents of their dowry.  Since most women were covered from head to toe, and little opportunities for getting to known them were available, the dowry served instead.  

A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.)  Women were only permitted one husband at a time.  In the case where a young married woman became a widow, the brother of the dead husband was bound to marry his sister-in-law, or be humiliated by the community.  This is known as Levirate marriage.

Divorce was easy and only the husband's prerogative.  All the Old Testament husband had to do was find something "unclean" in his wife and he could write a bill of divorcement and she was kicked out of the house. What his unclean thing was, is not known.  In Jesus's day, the two central rabbis, had differing opinions. Hillel said that offering burnt toast was a sufficient cause for divorce;  Shammai said it must be a serious offence like adultery.

Even the marriage ceremony is a modern invention.  Several stories in the Old Testament emphasize that the husband simply takes the bride into his tent, verifies her virginity, has sexual intercourse, and she lives with his family from then on.  There was no religious ceremony involved.  

In the West, it was not until the reign of Caesar Justinian, A.D. 527-565, that laws regulating marriage were put in place.  Contracts were drawn up between families according to Roman law, and courts would decide the legality of certain marriages and divorces.  The lower classes basically practiced "common law" marriages, because they had little or no property to fight over.

Until the ninth century marriages did not involve the church. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during a ceremony that may or may not have been related to a church. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. It was only then that religion was added to the ceremony.  It became a sacrament in the 16th century by action of the Council of Trent. 

Until the late 19th century and early 20th century, marriage was more of a necessity than it is today.  Men don't need women to run a household, or bear them children for labor on the farm, or to obtain a dowry.  Women don't need husbands to provide for their livelihood, or for bearing children, or for status in society. Marriage these days is for none of the reasons of yore.  

So marriage today is quite different from marriage in Bible times.  It has evolved from being strictly an agreement between family patriarchs, involving a man and one or more wives, to a free will decision between two consenting adults.  And in the case of several states, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia, marriage is legal between two people of the same sex.

Although marriage has usually been between a man and one or more women, it has normally been an opposite sex institution.  There have been cultures where women were able to marry more than one man, and where people of the same sex were allowed to marry.  (For a cursory history of accepted same-sex unions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions) It is not possible to say with authority, as many try to, that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, or even opposite sexes.  

All of this is to say that marriage is always evolving.  There was even a time when incest was considered appropriate, where sons and daughters were forced to marry even those who were strangers, where marriage was for the convenience of the father at the expense of the daughter, where love had nothing to do with it.  There is likely no period before our own in which any of us would have liked to live under their marriage laws or customs.  It took us centuries, even millennia, to arrive where men and women are free to choose their partners. Well, that is, if you are heterosexual.  If you are not you are still subjected to rules that no one else wants to live under.  For that reason alone, all people should be afforded the ability to marry the one of their own choosing.  

(For a biblical argument in favor of same-sex marriage, see http://clergyunited.blogspot.com/2013/01/loneliness-first-not-good-of-creation.html)

TOMORROW: Jesus on Marriage

What to Say to Your Friends about Same-sex Marriage, Pt. 1

Same-sex marriage is becoming less and less controversial as more states (and nations) are legalizing it, while books and articles on all sides of the issue abound.  It is a topic that has come of age.  Likely, you have been involved in discussions about this.  If you are unclear about how to think about same-sex marriage, or about how best to frame your responses, these suggestions may help.

"Marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
This is almost too easy to refute.  I am puzzled how anyone can hold this view.  The cynical side of me thinks that no educated person really believes this.  So, remind people that Abraham, King David, Solomon, and a host of Old Testament patriarchs had many wives as was approved under the Law of Moses.  In the New Testament, Paul advises that an Elder (congregational leader) should have only one wife, suggesting that polygamy was still in use among some Christians.

And to make matters worse for those who would make marriage between one man and one woman the ideal, both Paul and Jesus forswear marriage for Christians if at all possible.  The ideal is a celibate life; marriage is considered an encumbrance to spreading the gospel.

"Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, giving it the cover of marriage does not change the fact that it is a sin."
In the first place, America is not a theocracy.  Our Constitution governs us, not the Bible. So the mere fact that the Bible condemns anything is irrelevant.  Do we make gluttony or pride unlawful just because the Bible says they are sins?  Of course not.

"If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Child brides? Where will it end, marrying our pets?" 
This is commonly known as the "slippery slope" argument.  The fact that any supposed next step may be undesirable is irrelevant.  What is at issue is the worthwhileness of same-sex marriage.  It should stand or fall on its own merits, not on what may or may not ensue.  Opponents of the ban on assault weapons in 1994 claimed that the next step would be the banning of all rifles and eventually the confiscation of all guns.  The next step was actually the repeal of the ban on assault weapons.  The government's argument for sending troops to Vietnam was called the "domino effect."  If we let Vietnam fall, then it's neighbors will fall and we will loose the entire of South East Asia to the communists.  Vietnam fell to the communists.  No other nations fell. Today, we have normalized relations and Vietnam is a member of the UN, the World Trade Organization and a threat to no one.

The slippery slope argument is resorted to when no good arguments are any longer available. By using this, opponents of same-sex marriage are admitting they have nothing left of value to say.

"Marriage is only for the purpose of procreation.  LGBTs can't procreate, so they aren't eligible for marriage."
This is another of those arguments that stretch credibility.  This argument is made by the Roman Catholic Church and other religious groups, but even they don't honor it, for they will marry people well beyond the age to procreate, and those who are young but can't conceive.

Only the most dogged literalists would insist on limiting the definition of procreation to "sperm meets egg."  Procreation, that is, creating a family, is not only possible among LGBTs but happening every day.  Adoption   is one of the most urgent needs today.  Gay families have proven themselves to be appropriate options for raising a family.  Same-sex marriage would aid in making this possible.

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will harm traditional marriages."
The easiest way to defuse this objection is to ask a simple question: Tell me just how your marriage will be harmed?  In asking this countless times, I have yet to get any answer at all.  Not just a poor answer, but no answer.

To broaden the issue just a bit, if it is suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage will impact traditional families, they are correct.  Their children will be obliged to recognize that some of their playmates have two mommies or daddies.  This will certainly raise questions for their moms and dads. Schools will likely have to deal with same-sex relations in health classes.  However, this situation already exists.  Not legalizing same-sex marriage will not change this.  Recognizing it will mean that we will have open discussions and fact based research, such as the realization that gayness is not an airborne disease that we catch by being in the same room with it.  The children of opposite-sex parents will not more easily become gay by association; their parents have nothing to fear.  If their children turn out to be gay, it is for other reasons, altogether.

"Okay, smart-aleck, you tell me why same-sex marriage is a good thing!"
Same-sex couples face the same challenges and problems that opposite-sex couples who are married face, yet are without the same resources to meet these challenges.  There are 1009 federal benefits presently withheld from them as well as many state benefits.  America is all about equal rights.  LGBTs unable to marry are being discriminated against, and this should stop.  As Byrne Fone of Harvard said, "Homosexuality is the last respectable bigotry in America."  It's time we ended it.

Here's Bishop Gene Robinson's take on why separation of church and state works for the good of both the church and state:

TOMORROW: A Closer Look at the Bible and Same-sex Marriage

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 8

On the National Organization for Marriage website, NOM answers questions supposedly posed to them by the opposition.

The question to NOM, Number 8.  Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

NOM's Answer: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Setting aside for a moment the notion that mom and dad represent the ideal, single mothers, single fathers, grandparents, a grandfather, a grandmother, various uncles and aunts, all are at this moment raising children.  Simply because these are not the "ideal" situation does not in any way keep so-called "lessor" configurations from raising children.  Here the proverb, "Don't let excellence become the enemy of the good," seems to make its point.  By virtue of circumstance, children are often placed in situations that don't permit a mother and father.  Every effort is made to keep them with their closest relative.  Why? Because it is known that children are better off with their relatives than in a state supervised institution or foster family. Yet, for the National Organization for Marriage and their supporters, two men or two women who want to raise a child are singularly deemed unworthy.  This makes no sense on the face of it.  

I don't see NOM urging that divorced people, or widowed mothers or fathers, should have their children taken from them simply because a mother or father is not now present.  Too many of their supporters fit this description and they would have a serious rebellion on their hands.  Yet they don't think twice that maybe, just maybe, two men or two women might be suitable parents.

Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.  http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/newsroom/news_release.php?id=684       

As a matter of fact, just as gays have had very successful careers in the military long before "Don't ask, don't tell," was eliminated, so have LGBTs been raising children successfully all along.  We don't have to wonder if they will make good soldiers; they already do.  We don't have to wonder if they will make good parents; they already are.  This is not a social experiment; it is a social reality.  And they live just down the street from you.

And with all the orphans languishing across the world, wouldn't having a gay parent or two be preferable to none at all?  At least the child would be wanted and loved which goes a long way toward a successful outcome.  Yet NOM would keep these children parent-less.  It just makes one wonder if homophobia may be more than a word, for there is no reasonable explanation for not urging same-sex parenting.   

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 7

On the National Organization for Marriage website, NOM answers questions supposedly posed to them by the opposition.

The question to NOM, Number 7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

NOM's Answer: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

In the first place, it's not divorce that's the problem (as if outlawing divorce would solve the problem), it's the reasons for divorce.  Unfaithful spouses, various addictions, workaholics, money issues, spousal abuse, and more contribute to why marriages fail.  Divorce is often the best solution to a failed marriage.  So to get serious about diminishing the rate of divorce means attacking it on a multiplicity of fronts.  It's a tall order.  But leaving this in the hands of the most vocal of supporters of traditional marriage is not, as we shall see, the answer.

Heterosexuals are the main cause of marriage failure.  Consider Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, Britney Spears and Jason Alexander, Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra, Nicholas Cage and Lisa Marie Presley, Elizabeth Taylor's eight marriages to seven husbands. This is in no way confined to the rich and famous, as we all know many couples whose marriages lasted for very short periods.  In the defense of the 50% failure rate, I once heard a professor of marriage and the family explain that this is almost miraculous, as since the early part of the 20th century, there is no reason for marriage whatsoever than Romantic Love.  All the former reasons, raising children to help with the farm, needing domestic help, needing a provider, wanting children, etc., no longer are necessary in today's world.  And Romantic Love is another contributor to the divorce rate, as people who believe they "fall in love" also believe they "fall out of love," as well.  In the professor's words, "I am surprised that the divorce rate is only fifty percent!"

It is a very peculiar thing that those opposed to same-sex marriage see it as a greater threat to traditional marriage than divorce.  All you have to do is measure the amount of time and money devoted to fighting same-sex marriage with efforts to ameliorate divorce.  

Yet, less than 5% of the population is likely to take advantage of gay marriage, not gays; it’s just a blip on the radar screen of threats.  It becomes less peculiar when we recognize that this tactic is really a subterfuge for promoting their real agenda, ending the push for same-sex marriage.  Some of the most outspoken people against same-sex marriage actually show by their own behavior strong contempt for the marriage vows. 

Take, for example, Bob Barr, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich, just to name a few.  They all have been divorced multiple times and admitted to adulterous affairs.  And all are strong supporters of DOMA.  (It should be noted that Barr has since recanted his support and is actively opposing it.)

DOMA, of course, is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by congress in 1996.  During a particularly stirring call for its passage by its sponsor, Congressman Bob Barr, (R-Georgia) he was asked by an opponent of the bill, “Mr. Barr, which of your three marriages are you defending?”

Most defenders of traditional marriage are nowhere close to these bad examples.  Yet none has been able to explain just how it is that allowing same-sex marriage will hurt straight marriages in any way.  But it is abundantly clear that divorce is a huge problem for traditional families. Yet, very little is offered in the way of workable solutions to diminish its impact on families.

A broad consensus of social researchers concludes that an intact family provides the largest measure of support for the future success of its children.  By keeping same-sex families from the legal benefits of marriage and not according them the common respect due any loving family, we are contributing to the continuation of family failure.  But to correct this we’d actually have to be concerned more about all children…not just children from traditional families.