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

Here NOM Goes Again!

I've devoted several posts to prior statements from the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, that more than require a scratching of the head. This time, however, they have outdone themselves.  Their peculiar brand of logic can only be described as solely at the service of their cramped ideology.  For it makes no sense except to them and to those who subscribe to their patriarchal notions of family.  To wit:

In an article yesterday from the Associated Press, the writer surveyed the Justices' family situations and discovered that they are divorced, remarried, never married with no children, and married once with children. In other words, the Justices' family lives look a lot like American families. This got John Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins sociologist thinking about the upcoming gay marriage cases, and mused, if "Justices consider their own family lives in these cases, it may change the way they rule."  Chief Justice Roberts and his wife are the parents of two adopted children.  The chairman of NOM, John Eastman, commented on the value of Justice Roberts' decision to adopt:

"You're looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option." 

The "second best option."  Adoption could never be considered anything but second best. Why?  Because only a family of the birth mother and birth father raising their own birth children qualifies as "the best."  

There is no room in NOM's world for anything but mom, dad and their child as the best, and if they had their way, the ONLY way to raise a family.  I wonder how Justice Roberts and his wife feel about being second best?  I wonder how his children when they look back upon their lives will feel about being raised "second best"?  Or adopted children and their parents everywhere?

I told you this would only make sense if you must defend at all costs NOM's view of the ideal home.  No wonder then that yesterday Brian Brown, NOM's president, released the following statement regarding the selection of Pope Francis I:

Pope Francis has also said: "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts."

You see, the issue isn't that NOM really cares that adoption is second best.  What they really are after is a way of prioritizing the hierarchy of family configurations from best to worst so they can make gay families with adopted children the worst.

The stakes are so high with NOM that they will insult the Chief Justice of the United States, his children, all adoptive parents and their children, and all who will ever open their homes to orphaned children.  This is what happens when ideology blinds: anything goes.

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

The question to NOM, Number 9.  What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

NOM's Answer: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

The emphasis that NOM places on the priority of a mom and dad seems to me tantamount to idolatry.  "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other parenting options before me."  As with all idolatry, serving a false god not only ends in slavery to it, but keeps one from the true God; in this case, the God who supports all people of good will, and calls us all to do the same.  Certainly NOM is slavishly committed to only mom and dad as parents.  Too bad for children, because the world is full of kids that need the love of an adult of any orientation that will never find it if NOM has its way.  Fortunately NOM's influence is waning; the arc of justice is bending in favor of other options for parenting.

What is the source of this idolatry?  One need not speculate; it is a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. Their statements over the years are filled with appeal to their notion of God's intention for the family.  Funny, but the Bible is not the holy repository of "only a mom and a dad" theology.  A strong case can be made (and I will make it in a future posting) that Jesus was not a fan of the nuclear family, and the apostle Paul preferred his followers not marry at all.  And his stated reason for marrying (as a last resort) was not for procreation, but to keep from lustful sinning!  

Now, what about older or infertile couples?  They certainly fall into the acceptable category of NOM's rightful parents.  They will likely never be mother or father to any children that issue from that marriage. Let me put it another way.  People who never will be parents are allowed to marry.  Many same-sex couples will never be parents, either.  So under what possible reasoning can we withhold marriage from them?  

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

This is the last of this series on NOM's questions and answers.  I've responded to all the questions they posted on their "Get Informed/Frequently Asked Questions" webpage.  If you found these helpful, give a shout-out to your friends. If you did not find them helpful, respond to me and we'll take it from there.  Regardless, I wish you all well.

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.

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 6

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

The question to NOM, Number 6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”
NOM's Answer: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.” 
A: “The issue isn't benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples that are denied to same-sex couples by virtue of the federal Defense of Marriage Act: 

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital (from http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm)

Just try to fix this problem!  The only way to do it is to dismantle DOMA, which, of course, NOM fully supports.  

NOM implicitly agrees that important benefits should be awarded to same-sex couples, even if this is to be decided by "local folks."  They know that the majority of Americans are in favor of such extension of benefits.  But their solution is impossible, therefore it is not a serious solution at all.

NOM is correct in stating that this is about the meaning of marriage.  And it is about protecting our children.  But from what?  If NOM is serious about protection, then why would they advocate that children of same-sex couples not receive the same protecting federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples?  Same-sex marriages and civil unions are a fact of life in America and are here to stay.  This seems more like a war against children than a defense of traditional marriage.

And the idea that children in same-sex marriages are in an inferior environment does not pass professional examination.  In case you missed earlier posts, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry approved the following statement in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender parenting in 2009:

All decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the interest of the child. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child.

Yes, this is about the meaning of marriage.  It's about putting true meaning into the lives of myriads of couples who desire to be married or are married, yet are denied the full benefits of marriage.  They provide their families with love and support in the face of very difficult circumstances, yet, on average,  manage more than satisfactory outcomes. I think it's time we untie that hand behind their backs and provide a level playing field.  If the Supreme Court does not strike down DOMA, support a Congress that does does.  

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 5

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

The question to NOM, Number 5.  Why do you want to interfere with love?

NOM's Answer: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn't just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

So, if marriage is a "special love of husband and wife for each other and their children,” then it follows that if that same love is between two people of the same sex (whether they are called husband and wife, or not), then marriage on that basis should not be opposed.  Yet it is.  It is, because for these folk and their supporters, it is inconceivable that same-sex love is qualitatively no different from heterosexual love.  Yet there is no difference.  To those who think otherwise, I have only one response: you don't know enough LGBTs who have formed families and been together for decades.

Many of these couples have children, often by adoption.  As stated in an earlier post, The American Psychological Association states in their official policy that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx  There is also no qualitative difference between the love of same-sex couples for their children and that of heterosexual couples.  To those who think otherwise, I have only one response: you don't know enough LGBTs who have formed families and been together for decades.  

I learned in a college philosophy course that 

Aristotelian philosophers determined the number of teeth in a horse by rigorous application of logic.  They thought it unnecessary to actually examine a horse's mouth!  As with most ideologues, it is not necessary to examine actual situations, as they know before the fact that they are right.  Their ideology does their thinking for them.  So, for those who believe that same-sex marriage is qualitatively and morally inferior, there is no need to actually get to know same-sex families and the literature surveying the field.  The question is answered for them already.  

"Love is a great thing."  Just as with the apostle John's description of the Holy Spirit, love moves where it wills.  It is not confined to a fixed setting, especially that fixed by others.  It finds its way into people and situations of all kinds, asking only that it be reciprocated, not restricted or condemned.  And it ultimately will overcome all obstacles, not only in individual's lives, but in all things.  For love is of God, and God will prevail, for God is love.  Therefore, we are tampering with God's self when we put obstacles in the way of those who would love.  On this ground, I would walk carefully.

One last thought.  I write not of emotional love alone.  I write of that self-sacrificing love that gives of itself for no reward but the well-being of the beloved, be it spouse or children.  I write of the love that nurtures its beloved out of the single desire for wholesome growth.  I write of the love that is willing to forego its own interests for that of the beloved.  I write of the love that is sustained through thick and thin, through disagreements and disappointments, in sickness and in health, regardless of a marriage certificate.  I write of a love I personally know of by virtue of actually getting to know many of these couples and families.  Before I did this, I couldn't imagine any of this could be true.  Now I can't imagine why anyone would think that now.

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 4

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

The question to NOM, Number 4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

NOM's Answer: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

“If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.” 

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage." 

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.” 

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.” 

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Let's take them one at a time.

Who gets harmed?  Well, who bestowed the "right" to define marriage on you?  As long as you believe that it's your right to impose your will on, now, the majority of Americans who believe same-sex marriage should be legalized, I guess you will feel harmed.  But it's not your right.  So get over it.

The supposed loss of tax exemptions, etc.  This is 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 US Constitution.  

On the other hand, when minorities are granted rights long withheld from them, this means that the majority looses 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 (no Jews allowed) clubs", 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, the American Medical 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. 

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry approved the following statement in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender parenting in 2009:

All decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the interest of the child. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child.

We also concede that “the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”  We don't, however, view this belief in the importance of a mom and dad as bigotry, unless it is advocated at the expense of nontraditional families.  It certainly should be considered on an equal plane with same-sex married partners' parenting.  It is truly bigotry to label non traditional families as dysfunctional, disordered or even pathological.  

Finally, "The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife....”  True, again.  However, I would insist on the phrasing as "presumed right."  There is no loss of the ability for heterosexuals to marry the opposite sex.  That will never change.  That right will be forever intact.  So nothing is really lost, but we will have gained another very valuable right in America, the right of any person to marry the person of their choice.

Tomorrow: The question to DOM 5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

Dom's Answer: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage’s Questions, Number 3

NOM's Question Number 3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

NOM's Answer: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

How many pejoratives can fit in one paragraph; let’s see: imposed, threaten, in our face, end-run, activist judges, grandstanding, San Francisco-style, politicians.  That’s eight!  This is what one needs to do when there is no good argument handy.  It’s a cousin to ad hominem attacks.

DOMA, of course, is the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 that defines marriage as “the legal union of one man and one woman” for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States.  NOM is rightly nervous these days since the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of this Act in this session.  NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher is on record saying she thinks the Court will strike it down.  So only a constitutional amendment will keep the ban on same-sex marriage safe.

First, we need a civics lesson.  Contrary to NOM’s wishes, 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, in their view, 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 since they wrote this answer and the majority of 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.

One more thing.  As you can tell, same-sex marriage is seen as a real threat to NOM and their supporters.  We will delve next into why with the look at their question and answer to number 4:  What’s the harm from same-sex marriage?

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage's Questions, No. 2

There are several national organizations that are set up to defend "traditional marriage."  One such, the National Organization for Marriage, has a website page titled, "Same-sex Marriage: Answering the Toughest Questions."  http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm.

Over the next few days, I will respond to their "answers," and invite you to join in.

NOM's Question from the opposition, Number 2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
NOM's Answer: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

My response: Another non-answer akin to “bait and switch.”  NOM asks a question about comparing bans on gay and interracial marriage and switches to comparing one parent to two parents.  So let’s first deal with their non-answer and then address the actual question.

It is true that there are disadvantages to parenting alone.  It is also true that two parents, a mom and dad, also have disadvantages, else the divorce rate wouldn’t be so high.  There is no perfect allocation of people for raising children.  But this begs the question.  Is marriage only about raising children?  Of course not.  Bearing children (reproduction) is not essential to a marriage or we wouldn’t let the elderly, the impotent or those who choose to have no children marry.  However, there is no inherent disadvantage for a child to be raised by gay parents.  The American Psychological Association states in their official policy that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

I do want to give NOM credit for realizing that bans on interracial marriage were, indeed, about one race oppressing another.  Majorities (as least those with majority power) tend to do this all over the world, in every society.  I only wish that DOM would acknowledge their own oppression of nonheterosexuals by working so hard to deny them access to marriage.  I don’t know what else to call it.

So, in addition to oppression, the comparison works on other levels.  The “supposed” reason the white majority did not allow racially mixed marriages was due to the presumed inferiority of the African people. In time we learned that there are no differences among the races; that, in fact, the notion of race itself is now being questioned.  People are, indeed, people.  Now we know that this includes LGBTs as well.  We all share a common humanity, with the same needs, desires, range of abilities and all things human.  On what basis can we withhold any human good that is open to any other human being?  The fact that they yearn for marriage is one more indication of their normalcy.

Hysterical and unfounded fear of the black man, especially of his presumed sexual powers, fanned the flames of racism and gave impetus to the need for laws to keep them away from our women and polite society.  Similarly, gay men are caricatured as oversexed, promiscuous, predator pedophiles whom we need to keep from our children and young men.  In fact, they are none of these, at least in no greater proportion than found in straight men (who are most of our pedophiles).

So, the ban against same-sex marriage is a close parallel to bans against interracial marriage.  And for the same good reasons we should eliminate any barriers that keep LGBTs from exercising the right most of us have to marry the person of our choosing.

Answers to the National Organization for Marriage's Questions

There are several national organizations that are set up to defend "traditional marriage."  One such, the National Organization for Marriage, has a website page titled, "Same-sex Marriage: Answering the Toughest Questions."  (http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm) Over the next few days, I will respond to their "answers," and invite you to join in.

NOM's question from the opposition, Number 1. Are you a bigot?   “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?” 
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn't new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

My response:  I will leave the question of bigotry aside as it gets us nowhere, except to wonder why they lead with this presumed slur, except to portray their opposition as unfairly characterizing them.  But, it hardly figures into the discussion.  Leaving aside, also, the insistence that "Marriage as a union of husband and wife isn't new," it is relatively new.  Marriage has evolved over the millenniums and has finally been codified in the West as such, but has never been, nor continues to be, the only way marriage is constructed.

Rather, my concern is with the notion that “it’s not taking away anyone’s rights.  It’s common sense,” that concerns me most.  There’s a bit of obfuscation here.  Surely, no straight person’s right to marry in the traditional fashion will be taken away.  The salient point here is that the right of a nonheterosexual person to enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage IS being withheld.  Those of us in support of same-sex marriage are so convinced of the worthwhileness of marriage that we want to expand the base, not contract it.  That seems more like common sense to me.

BTW, the African-American opposition to same-sex marriage is now reversed.  A Pew Research Center exit poll on Nov. 6 revealed 51% favorable to 41% not in favor nationwide.  This increase in favorability reflects virtually every demographic across the board.

And, yes, it is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.  It has never been done and it will never be done, at least on this issue.  Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, women barred from voting, and many other discriminatory laws embedded in many state constitutions have all been declared unconstitutional. As MLK, Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  It’s bending closer and closer to freedom for LGBTQs to marry.

TOMORROW: Answer to question 2.  Isn't the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

Why Same-sex Marriage Is Needed and Appropriate

One Case for Gay Marriage (from the opposition)

Ironically, the case for gay marriage is made best by one of its harshest opponents, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher.

It is from a book entitled, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. It is co-written by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. They sum up the case for marriage in this way:

New marriage partners together create a shared sense of social reality and meaning—their own little separate world, populated by only the two of them. This shared sense of meaning can be an important foundation for emotional health.

Ordinary, good-enough marriages provide the partners with a sense that what they do matters, that someone cares for, esteems, needs, loves, and values them as a person. No matter what else happens in life, this knowledge makes problems easier to bear….

Marriage and family provide [a] sense of belonging . . . the sense of loving and being loved, of being absolutely essential to the life and happiness of others. Believing that one has a purpose in life and a reason for continued existence, (that life is worth the effort because one’s activities and challenges are worthy), come from having other people depending on you, caring about you. Married people have a starring role in the lives of their spouses; their shared universe would cease to exist if something happened to one of them. When the shared universe includes children, the sense of being essential, of having a purpose and a full life expands as well. Marriage improves emotional well-being in part by giving people a sense that their life has meaning and purpose….

As Professor Normal Glenn stated in a critique of textbooks, "Most social scientists who have studied the data believe that marriage itself accounts for a great deal of the difference in average well-being between married and unmarried persons. Indeed, loneliness is probably the negative feeling most likely to be alleviated simply by being married…."

The key [to well-being] seems to be the marriage bond itself: Having a partner who is committed for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, makes people happier and healthier. The knowledge that someone cares for you and that you have someone who depends on you helps give life meaning and provides a buffer against the inevitable troubles of life.

It astonishes me that anyone who has such a high regard for the multitudinous benefits that marriage brings to a relationship would want to keep such a wonderful way of life solely for oneself and those like oneself, for heterosexuals only.  There is every reason to believe that marriage would be good for non-heterosexuals for the same reasons it is good for heterosexuals.   After all, people are people.  Non-heterosexuals want to be married for the same reasons heterosexuals do.  If the Christian Right’s stereotypical view of non-heterosexuals is true —that they are lust driven, orgy seeking, diseased in mind and body, incapable of monogamy— why on earth would they be interested in marriage?  The fact is, they have every normal person’s desire for the state of matrimony and for all the right reasons.  Typically, all they want is the recognition that they are human beings.  Therefore, the withholding of marriage to them is the equivalent of withholding their humanity. 

Not So Fast Bishop Spong!

I'm going to keep writing and debating on behalf of same-sex marriage and gay equality, and here's why:

Although I applaud Bishop Spong’s statement (see below), I hope that it is not interpreted to mean that ALL conversation regarding the Bible and homosexuality need cease, especially since I have debated folk on the subject of same-sex marriage and the legitimacy of gay Christianity, and intend to keep doing so.

Two areas of rich and meaningful conversation remain: with gays trapped in a false religious notion of what the Bible says, and with the "movable middle" who want to be accepting, but don’t have the information to make it possible.  If we no longer keep the effort up to combat false biblical interpretations, at least in these two areas, we will give the victory over to the haters.

A retreat and workshop just concluded in Florida had its focus on the many thousands of LGBTs who are victimized by the unscientific and fictional belief promoted in substandard translations of the Bible and repudiated reparative therapists that they can be healed of their homosexuality and made straight.  Of the many ex-ex gays working to combat this stupidity, there are thousands who are still totally in the dark, needing to hear the truth.  I hope people don’t interpret the good bishop as saying there is no need to somehow get the message of the gospel’s inclusion to them.  No, the battle is not over, the victory is not won.  Would he not now raise his voice against a racist slur or sexist act?  I believe he would.

After every seminar I do on the Bible and homosexuality, parents come to me with thankfulness that now they can intellectually do what their heart cried out for them to do, accept their LGBT child without reservation.  This is the movable middle, well-meaning people who, armed with the right information will do the right thing.  Are we ready to abandon them?

There are still thousands of LGBTs and their loved ones who need to hear this and many more life-changing bits of information.  Let’s not mute up just yet.  Too many lives are still at stake.

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

A Manifesto on Debating Homosexuality

  by Bishop John Shelby Spong

A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!
I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility.

I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy.

I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired.

I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people.

I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant."

I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.

I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer.

The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves.

I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged.

In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.

I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude.

I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it.

I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed forces. We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled, whether voting privileges should be offered to women? The time has come for politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a "mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.

I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it, but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it.
– John Shelby Spong