(Reference) Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" -Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera. Then you get to gay marriage. And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold. Nearly three people in four in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue. Why all the passion? It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about. The purpose of this essay is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight. First, lets discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. And gays do have such relationships! But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young. Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!' If you attend any gay event, such as a Pride festival or a PFLAG convention, you'll find this to be true. As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships. The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well. A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers. These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now. So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it? Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to. Additionally, many people continue to believe that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex is a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are a minority themselves. The Arguments Against Gay Marriage Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water. Here's a summary: 1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. 2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. 3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. 4. Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument. 5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If ten percent of all the human race were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them? 6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. That one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage. 7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction? 8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage. 9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue. 10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it. 11. Sodomy is illegal. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why is sodomy still illegal in many states? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted) have blocked attempts to repeal them in every state where sodomy laws are still on the books. Indeed, those laws are very rarely enforced (though it does happen), yet there is very stiff opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they're a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis of legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a criminal!" These are very real, actual arguments used in states where sodomy laws remain on the books. So even though the moral crusades of the religionists using the power of the police have largely ended, the sodomy laws that made them possible remain, and likely will for as long as conservative religionists have their way. Indeed, some state legislatures have even tried to reenact sodomy statutes! Heterosexuals would never allow such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, have begun to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws have been overturned as unconstitutional as have been repealed by state legislatures. The real reasons people oppose gay marriage So far, we've examined the reasons everyone give for opposing gay marriage. Let's examine now the real reasons people oppose it, even fear it: Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is neccessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. Marriage is a sacred institution. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion anyway. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners. The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species. Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known (and dated) plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist detailing their relationships. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay. Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so wrong? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged? The base fear here is that of rape and a loss of control or status. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food (or the female) and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate. It has been suggested that homophobia is an instinctual fear of being raped by someone that the homophobe regards as lower than him in status. And the notion that a gay man might rape him is an instinctual fear. This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Prison rape is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to promiscuous heterosexual sex once they're on the outside. So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting you do as a straight man with a woman - as a part of the expression of love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you do - the love and affection of a partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us (and it's a very small minority) who enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored. The thought of gay sex is repulsive. Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway. Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends." They might recruit. The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these therapies have never shown any significant results. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is quite unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might be. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws. Many conservative religionists privately oppose gay marriage in part because it would undermine the legal basis for sodomy laws. It would be hard to justify, before a court, allowing a couple to marry and then legally bar them from having sexual relations. So the integrity of the sodomy laws, which almost everyone, publicly at least, says are silly and puritanical, become a reason to oppose gay marriage! The fact is that most people really would like to see an end to sodomy laws, which they view as an example of a harsh, repressive, religiously motivated law from a bygone era, and gay marriage would help do that. The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general. Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair? If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to -*test*-('")ify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair? In many cases, even carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. Is this fair? These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways. These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate. Conclusion As we have seen, the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of the opponents make much sense when held up to the light of reason. So let's get on with it. Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance; "With liberty and justice for all."

Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Tax Benefits ~Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. ~Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits ~Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. ~Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. ~Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. ~Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Government Benefits ~Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. ~Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. ~Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits ~Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. ~Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. ~Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. ~Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits ~Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. ~Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits ~Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. ~Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits ~Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. ~Applying for joint foster care rights. ~Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. ~Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits ~Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." ~Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits ~Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. ~Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. ~Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections ~Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). ~Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). ~Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. ~Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. ~Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. ~Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. ~Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. Copyright © 2005 Nolo

The Pros and Cons of Same-Sex Marriage (All Viewpoints)

Twenty-one reasons why SSM is a bad idea, with rebuttals Overview of Same-Sex Marriage (SSM): Polls in the late 1990s found that the topic of grea-*test*-('") concern for conservative Christians, and for many other North Americans, was that gays and lesbians might achieve rights and protections in law that had previously been reserved as special privileges only for heterosexuals. Perhaps the most important of these rights is for homosexuals to be able to marry the partner that they love and to whom they are committed for the rest of their life. Since the first attempts to legalize same-sex marriage were launched in Hawaii, same-sex marriage and civil unions have remained on the "front burner." Concern increased during 2003-JUNE and JULY when same-sex marriages were legalized in both Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. Some same-sex adult couples from Canada, the U.S., and other countries have started to travel to these provinces to marry. Essentially all conservative Christian groups and leaders describe SSM and civil unions as a threat to society. They often consider the nature of this menace to be self-evident, and do not give an in-depth analysis of the reasons for their concerns. For example: ~Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council (FRC) wrote: "The growing attack on family and marriage is unprecedented in American history. Forces of radicalism are laboring night and day to deconstruct marriage, legitimize counterfeits, and re-define family in ways that would make it unrecognizable as the foundational social institution." 1 ~Gerard V. Bradley, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame and president of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars went further. He was quoted as saying that same-sex marriage would mean "the demolition of marriage." 2 On the other hand, many gay-positive, religious liberal, and mental health news sources stress that SSM and/or civil unions should be approached as civil liberty issues. The right to marry the person with whom you have made a lifetime commitment is of paramount importance to many -- a major human rights issue. For example: ~"Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference." 3 ~"GLAD contended that the right to choose whom a person marries is a fundamental right protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. The group argued that the emotional bonds for same- and opposite-sex couples are identical and so should be the legal rights, responsibilities and benefits that come from marriage." 4 These groups often don't consider possible negative effects that SSM may have on society. This essay considers arguments that SSM are undesirable -- that they might damage North American culture. Some were derived from the presentation by the State of Hawaii during the hearing in the Baehr v. Miike lawsuit in the Hawaiian Circuit Court in 1996. Some were derived from the ruling in the Hedy Halpern et al...." case by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Other points were extracted from a variety of E-mails and web sites by conservative Christians. Rebuttals are listed after each point. They are based on the assumptions that homosexuality is a fixed, unchosen, sexual orientation that is normal and natural for a minority of adults. This are the beliefs of most gays, lesbians, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers. Religious conservatives generally believe that homosexuality is a changeable, chosen, addictive, abnormal and unnatural lifestyle behavior; they will probably disagree with most of the rebuttals. 1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents. Assertion: The State of Hawaii and court petitioners representing the Roman Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed that gays and lesbians in committed relationships make inferior parents. The best way to assure that children get the best possible upbringing is to require spouses to be of different genders. Rebuttal: ~All of the witnesses in Baehr v. Miike -- both for the plaintiffs and the defense -- said that, on average, gay and lesbian couples are as loving as are opposite sex couples, and are equally as competent as parents. Since that court hearing, there have been many additional studies of the competency of gay and lesbian parents. Those conducted by groups opposed to same-sex marriage have generally found that homosexual parents are inferior; those conducted by groups that support same-sex marriage, or which have no preconceived position have generally found that gay and lesbian couples are equal or superior to opposite-sex parents. 8 Children parented by lesbians or gays have been found to be no different from those raised in an opposite-sex household "...on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Also, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." 9 ~It is true that a child in a same-sex household could lack contact with adults of the opposite gender from their parents. However, this can easily be compensated for by intentionally involving other adults of the appropriate gender in family activities. ~The lists of studies of gay and lesbian parenting. 2. Children need to be raised by their biological parents: Assertion: Children are better off when raised by their biological parents. In a same-sex marriage, at least one parent would be genetically unrelated to the child. Rebuttal: ~With a divorce rate approaching 50%, a large minority of children are parented by a genetically-unrelated adult at some time in their lives. This inevitably happens in the case of a step family. If the state is to deny gays and lesbians, on this basis, the right to marry the partner that they love and have made a commitment to, then the state should logically deny divorced persons with children the right to remarry the person that they love. ~Child adoption is based on the belief that genetically-unrelated adults can love a child as their own, and do a good job raising the child. Millennia of experience has shown that this system works. 3. A child with same-sex parents will be subjected to hate: Assertion: Raising a child in a home with gay or lesbian parents in effect punishes the child, because they would be exposed to homophobia by the public. Hatred directed at the child's parents would spread to the child. Rebuttal: ~Using the same argument, one could suggest that all inter-racial marriages should be banned and that all individuals of mixed-race ancestry should not be allowed to marry because their children will be of mixed racial ancestry and may experience racism from racial bigots. Other people's racism or homophobia should not be used to deny fundamental human rights to gays, lesbians, inter-racial couples and persons of mixed-race ancestry . 4. Marriage is only feasible if the couple is monogamous; same-sex couples cannot be: Assertion: Because of monogamy, marriage is an stable institution. This is apparently a reference to the state's belief that homosexual couples cannot be monogamous. Rebuttal: ~It is important to realize that most opposite-sex marriages are not monogamous. The percentage of heterosexual spouses who engage in at least one extra-marital "fling" approaches 50%. The percentage of opposite-sex marriages in which both partners are monogamous is less than 50%. ~The belief that same-sex partners cannot be monogamous appears to be based on a misuse of statistical data. A "lifestyle" is a way of life that an individual chooses for themselves. Examples are whether to live in the country or city; whether to work for a company or be self employed; whether to be married or remain single, etc. There is a general consensus among gays, lesbians, religious liberals, human sexuality researchers, and therapists that sexual orientation is fixed and not chosen. So, homosexuality itself cannot legitimately be referred to as a "lifestyle" for the simple reason that it is not chosen. However, within the gay and lesbian community, as within the heterosexual community, there do exist two main, identifiable lifestyles: married couples and singles. Various surveys have shown that the average adult single gay man does have many sexual partners per year. However, the average gay or lesbian in a committed relationships have few, if any, sexual experiences other than with their spouse. 5. Same-sex spouses cannot bring children into the world by themselves: Assertion: The purpose of marriage is procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate by themselves. Rebuttal: ~The Hon. Marisa Ferretti Barth, a Canadian Member of Parliament stated: "Unfortunately, society has a tendency today to forget the importance of marriage. It is more than the simple union between two people. Marriage is the public joining together of a man and a woman who want to found a family, to have children and so ensure that the family will continue into future generations....Long before the founding of Canada, both the Pro-*test*-('")ant and the Catholic churches had established that marriage was an exclusive union between a man and a woman who freely agreed to become one flesh so that they could have children and provide each other with 'mutual society, help and comfort.' Throughout Canadian history, the Christian concept of marriage has occupied an important place, and still today is one of the foundation stones of Canadian society." 11 This is an argument from Natural Law: Opposite-sex couples can have children but no same-sex couples can have their own children. Because the latter cannot achieve the sole purpose of marriage -- to procreate -- they have no right to be married. As Joe Volpe, Canadian Member of Parliament wrote: "...marriage cannot be treated like any other invention or program of government. Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children (barring a medical anomaly or will). No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party....for most MPs, marriage remains the cornerstone of society, not some government response to the most recent lobby." 12 ~A lesbian or a male gay couple cannot procreate. But then, neither can a man and woman where one is infertile, either for a medical reason or because of age. Some opposite-gender couples marry and decide to never have a child between them. Many infertile couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex can become pregnant if they attend a fertility clinic. ~According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of infertile married couples of childbearing age in the U.S. was 2.1 million. 5 Some of these couples are able to have children of their own through in-vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination, etc. However, many are not. If the state feels that couples should not be able to marry unless they can produce children, then they should logically require fertility -*test*-('")s before a marriage license is issued. ~A very substantial minority of married heterosexual couples can no longer conceive because the wife is past menopause, or the husband has had a vasectomy, or for some other reason. Many heterosexual couples get married later in life when conception is not an option. If the state feels that the purpose of marriage is procreation, it would be logical to not allow these couples to remain married or to marry. ~Many heterosexual couples decide to remain childless when they marry. They may be heavily involved in their careers; they may realize that they carry poor genes that they would not want to pass on to a child; etc. There are many reasons why they might make this lifestyle choice. If the state asserts that procreation is the purpose of marriage, then they should logically extract a promise from each potential bride and groom that they will seriously have attempt to have children in the future. ~Many gay and lesbian partners do have children. Some bring children from former marriages into their new partnership. Many lesbian spouses are becoming pregnant with donated sperm. Some gay couples are having children via surrogate motherhood. These couples would presumably fulfill the states insistence that the purpose of marriage is procreation. ~The State of Hawaii's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" studied this issue and wrote: "The argument that same-sex marriage should be barred because it cannot lead to procreation is invalid, inconsistent, and discriminatory. Public policy should not deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and the right to raise a family if they wish to do so, on the excuse that they, between themselves, cannot procreate, when this reason is not applied to opposite-gender couples. State law does not require that opposite-sex couples prove that they are capable of procreation before they can be married, and many are obviously not, because of age, medical or other reasons. Individuals in a same- gender marriage may have children from a prior opposite-gender marriage, or can adopt children if they desire a family." 7 ~Mr. Justice Robert Blair of the Superior Court of Ontario wrote: "There is much more to marriage as a societal institution, in my view, than the act of heterosexual intercourse leading to the birth of children. Moreover, the authorities are clear that marriage is not dependent upon the presence of children." 10 6. The "slippery slope" concern: Assertion: If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes. Rebuttal: ~Prior to 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS and the Mormons) introduced polygyny. This involves one man marrying multiple wives, and was legal in Utah before it was admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to suspend polygyny for an indefinite period. However, during the half century that polygyny was legally practiced, the other practices mentioned above never developed. ~A Fundamentalist Mormon group settled in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada in the 1940s. It was excommunicated decades ago by the main LDS church because they follow Joseph Smith's original teachings in the practice of polygyny. They still live in plural marriages today. The Attorney General of the province decided that Canada's constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guarantees complete religious freedom in Canada, including the right to practice polygamy. Their practice never expanded into other parts of British Columbia society even though there has been, until recently, no opposition from the provincial government. Other marital structures simply never developed. ~The goal of the groups promoting same-sex marriage is very specific and limited. They assert that a man should have the same right to marry a man that a woman already has. Likewise, a woman should have an equal right to marry a woman. This does not have to imply that any other right not expressly granted is up for grabs. ~Marriage is precisely what the courts and legislatures choose to define it to be. Legislation can define it to be "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman. In that case, same sex couples would be denied the opportunity to marry. But, a law can also be written to define marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." This was suggested by the Ontario Court of Appeal on 2003-JUN-10 when they legalized same-sex marriage for the first time. 8 Legislatures can then define circumstances in which two people might not be allowed to marry -- e.g. they are two closely related genetically, or if they are too young. 7. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents will become homosexuals adults: Assertion: Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Children raised in families headed by gay or lesbian parents will be immersed in the gay lifestyle and be more likely to choose to become homosexuals themselves when they grow up. Rebuttal: ~Gays, lesbians, religious liberals, human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists have essentially reached a consensus that a person does not choose their sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Studies have shown that children raised in gay or lesbian homes share a number of behaviors as adults: ~~They tend to discriminate less on matters of race, gender or sexual orientation. ~~They tend to be more sexually experimental before marriage. ~~The percentage of children who grow up to be gay or lesbian is the same as in the general population. ~Of course, if society accepts persons of all sexual orientations as full human beings deserving of respect, then it would not matter whether the children of gay and lesbian-led families became homosexuals later in life. 8. Homosexual activity is a capital offense in the Bible: Assertion: There are at least a half-dozen references to homosexuality scattered throughout the Bible. All are negative. Leviticus 20:13 states that "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." (Living Bible): The New Living Translation says: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a de-*test*-('")able act, and are guilty of a capital offense." How can we allow gays and lesbians to marry if the Bible calls on them to be executed? Rebuttal: ~Those are accurate quotations from two of the more popular English translations of the Bible. However, they are also excellent examples of how translators allow their own personal prejudices to affect their judgment. The Living Bible and New Living Translation refer to homosexuals -- i.e. to male gays and lesbians. But the original Hebrew refers only to two men having sex. Lesbians do not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament). So, based on this passage, there would be no objection to two lesbians marrying. ~There are many similar verses in Leviticus which describe the Mosaic Code and use the Hebrew word "to'ebah" to condemn certain behaviors: sharing a meal with a person of another religion, eating shrimp or lobster, getting a tattoo, wearing a cotton and polyester shirt, planting a mixture of grass seeds in your front lawn, etc. None of these behavior are still considered "ritually impure" today. The passage may well be null and void. ~There is a lack of consensus on the meaning of the verse. Some believe that it prohibits two men from having sex on a woman's bed, but not in other locations. ~This passage is interpreted by many mainline and liberal theologians as referring only to ritual sex between two men in a Pagan temple. ~A denomination which interprets this passage as condemning all sexual acts between two men could certainly use it as a justification to refuse to marry a same-sex male couple. But the U.S. and Canada are not theocracies. What the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), Torah, Qur'an, or any other holy book says about homosexuality is immaterial when government create legislation on marriage. The Constitutions must be adhered to. ~More information about the Bible and same-sex behavior is available. 9. Almost everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral: Assertion: The vast majority of the faith groups in North America -- over 1,500 strong -- condemn homosexual behavior as a serious sin, hated by God. We cannot reward such behavior by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Rebuttal: ~While it is true that conservative religious groups condemn homosexual behavior, refuse to conduct union or marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, and refuse to ordain active homosexuals to the clergy, this is not true of all faith groups. In fact liberal groups such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, American Humanist Association, American Atheists, etc. promote equal rights for persons and couples of all sexual orientations. Many mainline churches are actively debating their stand on these matters. ~Neither the United States nor Canada is a theocracy. Thus legislation cannot be based on a particular religious faith's concept of morality and correctness, or their belief in what their God expects. The recent, 2003-JUN-26, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case implied that the state has no business in making laws that enforce religious concepts of morality by restricting private, consensual sexual behavior by adults. That ruling may indicate that laws giving special privileges to opposite-sex couples may be unconstitutional. ~The State of Hawaii's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" studied this issue and wrote: "Under our constitutional government the fact that some religions or churches condemn same-gender marriages does not mean that those religious beliefs can be imposed on others. Our separation of church and state prevents religious enforcement through state institutions, such as the Department of Health. Furthermore, the Constitution prohibits any religious group from having to perform the marriage of a couple that is not recognized by that religion." 10. Same sex marriage would be a radical change to society: Assertion: When same-sex marriages were considered in Hawaii, a conservative Christian organization, Hawaii's Future Today (HFT), filed a brief with the court in opposition. They said, in part, that same-sex marriage would introduce "a radical reform in the basic institution of marriage, jettisoning long-recognized cultural values and drastically redefining the fundamental structure of our society..." They stated that the government has a compelling interestin "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values." 6 Rebuttal: ~The essence of this argument is that because we have not allowed same-sex couples to marry in the past, that we should not allow them to marry in the future. If this logic were followed, slavery would still be practiced, men would be able to rape their wives with impunity, women would be prohibited from entering many professions, and non-virgin brides would be stoned to death today in North America. ~Author Andrew Sullivan wrote: "The introduction of gay marriage would not be some sort of leap in the dark, a massive societal risk. Homosexual marriages have always existed, in a variety of forms; they have just been euphemized. Increasingly they exist in every sense but the legal one. As it has become more acceptable for homosexuals to acknowledge their loves and commitments publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy trend." 10 ~As noted elsewhere, significant changes to the institution of marriage have occurred in the past as injustices were overcome. Society survived. In fact, if we were to reinstate the laws of an earlier time, and reintroduce polygyny, ban marriage for Afro-Americans, and prohibit mixed race couples from marrying, there would be a wall of opposition from the public. ~Like all institutions, marriage must change and adapt to meet the needs and values of the society. In their 2003-JUN-10 ruling which allowed same-sex couples to marry, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that: "...to freeze the definition of marriage to whatever meaning it had in 1867 is contrary to this country’s jurisprudence of progressive constitutional interpretation....The task of expounding a constitution is crucially different from that of construing a statute. A statute defines present rights and obligations. It is easily enacted and as easily repealed. A constitution, by contrast, is drafted with an eye to the future. Its function is to provide a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power and, when joined by a Bill or a Charter of Rights, for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties. Once enacted, its provisions cannot easily be repealed or amended. It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and must, in interpreting its provisions, bear these considerations in mind."

11. The government has an interest in preserving the status quo: Assertion: The government has a compelling interest to preserve the status quo in marriage -- to reserve it as a special privilege of opposite-sex couples and to deny it to same-sex couples. The brief by Hawaii's Future Today, also stated that the government has a compelling interestin "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values." 6 Rebuttal: ~The status quo in North America has shifted since 2003-JUN-10. On that date, a court in Ontario Canada declared that marriage licenses could be obtained by any adult couple -- same sex or opposite sex. So, in Ontario at lest, the status quo allows same-sex marriage. British Columbia followed suit on JUL-9. ~The report of the Hawaiian Sexual Orientation and the Law Committee stated that: "The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that denial of same-gender marriage was presumed to be a violation of equal protection of the law unless the State could show a 'compelling state interest' for such denial. The Commission finds that the various reasons advanced for denying same-gender marriages, including religious, moral and public health and safety, are similar to the Loving case and do not constitute a 'compelling state interest' and, as a matter of public policy, should not be used to deny equal rights under the law to same-gender couples." 7 The Loving case involved an interracial couple who pleaded guilty to the "crime" of marrying a person of another race and were sentenced to a one year jail sentence by a Virginia court. ~The ruling of the Court of Appeal for Ontario referred to the Attorney General of Canada's assertion "...that marriage relates to the capacities, needs and circumstances of opposite-sex couples. The concept of marriage - across time, societies and legal cultures - is that of an institution to facilitate, shelter and nurture the unique union of a man and woman who, together, have the possibility to bear children from their relationship and shelter them within it." The court rejected this argument for several reasons, including: ~~Laws must always be viewed by the court from the perspective of the claimant. The existing marriage legislation clearly discriminated against the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit. ~~The government's duty is to justify a breach of human dignity, not to explain it or deny its existence. This the government failed to do. ~~"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the...view...that same-sex couples are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationshipsThe court concluded that: "Accordingly, in our view, the common law requirement that marriage be between persons of the opposite sex does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples. This factor weighs in favour of a finding of discrimination." 12. Giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples is justified: Assertion: In the ruling of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Justices referred to an assertion by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC). He correctly pointed out that opposite-sex couples raise the vast majority of children. Thus the government is justified in giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples by allowing them to marry and granting them many financial benefits. Rebuttal: ~The court rejected the AGC's submission. They wrote: "The critical question to be asked...is whether opposite-sex couples are in a more disadvantaged position than same-sex couples....same-sex couples are a group who have experienced historical discrimination and disadvantages. There is no question that opposite-sex couples are the more advantaged group....In our view, any economic disadvantage that may arise from raising children is only one of many factors to be considered in the context of marriage. Persons do not marry solely for the purpose of raising children. Furthermore, since same-sex couples also raise children, it cannot be assumed that they do not share that economic disadvantage. Accordingly, if alleviating economic disadvantages for opposite-sex couples due to childrearing were to be considered an ameliorative purpose for the opposite-sex requirement in marriage, we would find the law to be underinclusive. The principle from Law that 'nderinclusive ameliorative legislation that excludes from its scope the members of a historically disadvantaged group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination' would be applicable." 13: Marriage has always been between one man and one women: Assertion: Every society down through history has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't want to mess with an institution that has as old a heritage as marriage. Rebuttal: ~This is a surprisingly widespread belief. But it is wrong. "Evidence from other cultures and other times demonstrates that same-sex marriages are neither unprecedented nor unnatural." In fact, they were widespread: ~~"Same-sex unions in ancient Egypt were recognized as marriages." ~~"Same-sex unions were an integral part of the cultures of classical Greece and republican Rome and imperial Rome..." ~~Many African tribes have recognize lesbian marriages. ~~Native Americans opened marriage to same-sex couples before the arrival of the Christian missionaries. 9 ~~The HFT report also implied that that marriage in Hawaii has always meant one man and one woman. Yet Aikane, close male societal and sexual relationships, were an accepted part of ancient Hawaiian culture, before the arrival of the Christian missionaries in the 19th century. 6 ~The Hebrew Scriptures describe eight different family structures, of which only one is a one-man one-woman marriage. None of these were criticized in the biblical text. ~Mr. Justice Harry Laforme of the Ontario Superior Court wrote: "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage.... 11 14: Same-sex marriage is just plain disgusting. Assertion: The thoughts of a man engaging in sex with another man makes my stomach heave and skin crawl. It is disgusting. I feel the same way about two lesbians having sex. Nobody in the world will respect our country if we allow this behavior to be institutionalized. Rebuttal: ~The feelings of revulsion at same-sex behavior is widespread in our culture. That is because over 90% of the population is heterosexual. i.e. they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. A side-effect of heterosexual orientation is often an intense aversion to thoughts of same-sex behavior. ~But that is only part of the story. Revulsion at same-sex behavior is not an absolute response found universally throughout our culture. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. Many have a strong aversion to the thoughts of opposite-sex behavior. ~Making a commitment to each other, deciding to live together, engaging in sexual behavior are very personal matters about which people differ greatly. It is important that we comprehend the diversity of people's sexuality. 15. Same-sex marriage (SSM) simply costs too much: Assertion: When people marry, the state or province automatically grants them about 500 benefits; the federal government gives them about 1,000 more. This would be a drain on the economy -- one that we cannot afford. Rebuttal: ~About 5% of the adults of North America are gay; another 3% or so are bisexual. It is these populations that would enter into same-sex marriage. As for heterosexuals: ~~Some would choose the single lifestyle. ~~Some would prefer to simply live together without marriage.SSM is so new that it is impossible to estimate how many gay and lesbian couples will choose to be married. Even if half of the homosexuals decide to marry, and one quarter of the bisexuals decided to marry same-sex partners, then SSM would still only constitute less than 4% of all marriages. The total cost of benefits to these couples would be minimal, compared to the cost of benefits to the 96% of marriages which would be by opposite-sex couples. ~If the goal is for the government to save money by reducing marital benefits, a much more lucrative approach would be to prohibit marriages in which one spouse is left-handed, or one spouse is blonde. That would involve a larger number of couples, and save the governments much more money than SSM would cost. Similarly, we could go back to the situation in 1966 and prohibit inter-racial couples from marrying in some states. We could go back to the culture of 1850 and prohibit African-Americans from marrying. We would save a bundle of money. But elementary justice prohibits us from doing this. ~It is profoundly immoral for the government to collect money in the form of taxes from individuals and couples of all sexual orientations, and then to dispense special privileges to opposite-sex couples only. 16: Same-sex marriage would irreparably harm marriage forever: Assertion: Some religious conservatives talk in terms of protecting marriage. Others talk in terms of the devastating effect that same-sex marriage would have on the institution. Rebuttal: ~Mr. Justice Harry Laforme of the Ontario Superior Court wrote: "I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage." ~In Ontario and British Columbia, where gays and lesbians are free to marry, no opposite-sex couple has been denied permission to marry, except for the usual requirements related to their age and genetic relationship. No opposite-sex couple has been denied any of the benefits of marriage which were due them. Some observers feel that the provinces have become more supportive of the needs of loving couples and their children since same-sex marriage was legalized. ~Bill Graham, the Canadian federal Foreign Affairs Minister, became the second federal minister to lend support to same-sex marriage. He said on 2002-AUG-5: "I respect those who believe in the integrity of marriage. That is a very important institution for us as Canadians, and for society. I think it is equally important that gay and lesbian people who are in an affectionate relationship over time want to commit themselves to that relationship." Commenting on the past granting of equality to gays and lesbians, Graham said: "It started with changes to the Criminal Code and hate crimes legislation, and then was followed by changes to the human rights code and substantial changes to the Pension Act and other acts to provide essentially the equivalent of common law marriage status to gay and lesbian couples, equal to that of a heterosexual common-law union. It is the final part of the picture." He noted that some Canadians are concerned of social chaos if same-sex marriage is approved. He noted that previous equity legislation also engendered similar dire predictions, but caused barely a ripple after taking effect. 2 17: Almost all of the churches are opposed to SSM: Assertion: Diane Knippers, of the conservative Christian Institute on Religion and Democracy, wrote: "The message of the universal Christian Church on marriage and human sexuality is crystal clear. It’s not simply the teaching of the largest churches--Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical. It’s also the other more liberal “mainline” Pro-*test*-('")ant churches..." Only the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is only partly Christian, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, and Reform Judaism favor SSM. All, or almost all, of the other 1,000 or so Judeo-Christian religious groups in North America oppose SSM. Rebuttal: ~This is true. Very few religious denominations support SSM. But this is totally expected, because the fight for equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals has barely begun. If you research every significant social change in North America with a religious and/or moral component, you will find that it is secularists and those faith groups who place great emphasis on human rights and justice who first embrace change. This happened with the Quakers, Mennonites, and Unitarians over the abolition slavery; initially, all of the other Christian churches were in favor of preserving slavery. But the abolition movement grew with the eventual support from a broad range of denominations. A similar transition has happened in the 20th century over women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, abortion access, and now equal rights for homosexuals, including the right of loving, committed gay and lesbian couples to marry. What Ms. Knipper is saying is that we are early in the process, and that -- to date -- only the most liberal denominations have supported SSM. The rest will eventually follow. Consider how many denominations today oppose interracial marriage. Yet it was illegal as recently as 1967 in some states. 18: Sex between a man and woman is the heart of marriage: Assertion: Diane Knippers also mentioned: "Sexual intercourse is intended as the expression of the very powerful physical force that bonds a man and a woman into the most essential, basic, and universal unit of human society. It ensures the propagation of the human race--and joins parents to the common task of rearing children. Ultimately, it creates a mystical one-flesh union between a man and a woman, a union in which two bodies, exquisitely designed precisely for one another, are joined in self-giving love and generous pleasure." 4 The implication is that sex does not have these functions in a SSM. Rebuttal: ~Sexual expression is precisely the same "very powerful physical force" that usually bonds couples, whether opposite-gendered, gay or lesbian. ~Along with the approximately 2.1 million infertile married couples of childbearing age in the U.S., lesbian couples need assistance in the form of artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization to have children. But many go this route. ~Sexual behavior certainly can create "....a mystical one-flesh union between a man and a woman in which two bodies "are joined in self-giving love and generous pleasure." But exactly the same phenomenon occurs between two lesbian spouses or gay spouses. Just befriend a same-sex couple and ask. ~Sex is an important part of marriage. But it is only one part. It is the sharing, the commitment, the planning, the supporting, the sacrificing, and other factors which form the main components of marriage. These are present in all intimate and successful opposite-sex and same-sex marriages. 19: SSM will damage international relations: Assertion: Mel Middleton, apparently of the Canada Family Action Coalition in Alberta described the 2003-JUN decision of the Government of Canada to legalize SSM as: "...a knife in the back to our democratic allies in the third world." Speaking to pro-democracy individuals in East Africa he found thatmost believe that the Canadian "government's decision is going to make it extremely difficult for democrats in oppressive third world countries such as Sudan to counter the charges that their oppressors are certain to make -- that 'western democracy' leads to decadence, moral depravity and societal decay." 6 Rebuttal: ~There are many factors in western cultures that people in some dictatorships and theocracies in the third world are mystified by: ~~Allowing individuals to openly proselytize persons of other religions. ~~Permitting people to change their religion freely. ~~Allowing Atheists and others write and lecture about the non-existence of God. ~~Restricting a man to only one wife. ~~Allowing a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. ~~Permitting a couple to marry without prior approval from their families. ~~Allowing two loving, committed same-sex couples to marry only adds one more item to this list. 20: SSM legislation will permit incestuous marriages: Assertion: Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Montreal, talked to the press about SSM at a news conference arranged by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is quoted as saying: "When you change the definition of the institution, you open the door to things you can't foresee. If marriage is a union between two persons who love each other - that's the new definition, without the allusion to sex - where does the notion stop? Will you recognize the marriage between a father and his daughter? Between a brother and his sister? Or two brothers or two sisters?...It's very dangerous because we don't know the consequences." 7 Rebuttal: ~Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon responded to the Archbishop's concerns. He told reporters in Calgary AB that both marriage and sex between a parent and child or two siblings is illegal. "The question that they raise is an offence based under the Criminal Code....I see no connection to what we are doing." 7 ~The Archbishop's comments moved Shelley Sullivan of Oakville ON to write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star which said: "If the marriage of two persons could lead to incest through the marriage of brother and sister, or father and daughter, how is it that the current definition of marriage, a man and a woman, does not exclude the possibility?...The answer is quite simple: The law excludes it and that would not change." 8 ~Kathleen Lahey, a law professor at Queen's University at Kingston, who was involved in the British Columbia SSM case said that the Archbishop is trying to reduce the concept to "its most absurd extreme...It is not a credible argument...I know of no example anywhere in the world in which opening marriage to same-sex couples has led to opening marriage to incestuous relationships, or the other argument that is often made, polygamous relationships." 7 21: Most people are opposed to SSM. Assertion: In a democracy, the majority rules. Since most people oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry, the will of the majority should prevail. SSM should remain forbidden. Rebuttal: ~The majority does not necessarily rule in democracies. That is why every state/province and federal government has a constitution. One function of governmental constitutions is to guarantee basic human rights even though the majority would deprive minorities of those rights. If we allowed the "tyranny of the majority" then governments would strip away basic human rights from unpopular groups, such as Agnostics, Atheists, Pagans, gays, lesbians, etc. ~In some states of the U.S. and in Canada, the majority of adults favor extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. ~In most or all states in the U.S., the majority of youth and young adults favor allowing same-sex marriage. References: 1 The judgment of the court, dated 2002-JUL 12, is reported at 60 O.R. (3d) 321. 2 Nicholaas van Rijn, "Graham backs gay marriage: Foreign affairs minister second to voice support," The Toronto Star, 2002-AUG-6, Page A8. 3 The Institute on Religion and Democracy has a web site at: http://www.ird-renew.org/ 4 Diane Knippers, "Sex and the Episcopalians. Is it really too much to ask for the Church to uphold and defend traditional marriage?," Beliefnet, 2003-AUG-3, at: http://www.beliefnet.com/ 5 Roxanne Nelson, "Financing infertility," 1999-MAY-19, CNN.com, at: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/ 6 Mel Middleton, "Some extremely pertinent questions (unanswered by government) raised about 'homosexual marriage'," Canada Family Action Coalition, undated, at: http://www.familyaction.org/ 7 Michelle MacAfee, "Catholic bishops say same-sex marriage could open door to incest," 2003-SEP-10, at: http://www.recorder.ca/ 8 Shelley Sullivan, "Catholic's logic badly confused," The Toronto Star, 2003-SEP-12, Page A27.

Eight Reasons Why Same Sex Marriages are Desirable (with Rebuttals)

Overview: Although the eligibility for marriage has undergone many major changes during the existence of the U.S. and Canada, and although Natives practiced same-sex marriage extensively before the European invasion, federal, state and provincial laws in North America have always restricted marriage to partners of opposite gender. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia began to issue marriage licenses and to record the marriages of same-sex couples in mid-2003. This has raised the level of public debate on the advisability of SSM. The following arguments have been asserted in favor of SSM. Rebuttals follow each point, and based on the assumptions that homosexuality is a changeable, chosen, addictive lifestyle and behavior. These are the beliefs of most religious conservatives. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers generally believe that homosexuality is fixed, unchosen, sexual orientation. The latter will probably disagree with most of the rebuttals. 1. No opposite-sex marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage (SSM) Assertion: SSM is an "add on." Opposite-sex couples will be able to marry and obtain all of the benefits that they have always received. The fact that somewhere down your street a loving gay or lesbian couple have decided to get married can have no significant impact on your own marriage. Rebuttal: ~Allowing gays and lesbians to marry cheapens marriage. As Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family said: "If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing." It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage, will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply "live together." 2. Marriage is a fundamental human right: Assertion: Across North America, couples meet, enjoy each other's company, date, form an exclusive relationship, and live together. Many want to marry, settled down and raise children. The right to marry the person that you love, have made a commitment to and wish to live with for the rest of your life is a foundational human right. Yet, as of 2003-JUL-12, it is a right that can only be exercised in the Western Hemisphere by traveling to Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Gays and lesbians have an intrinsic right to marry. Author Andrew Sullivan wrote: "...marriage has become a way in which the state recognizes an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals." 5 Rebuttal: ~"Marriage" has always meant the union of one man and one woman. ~Gay and lesbian children cannot perform the main function of marriage which is to produce children of their own. ~Opposite-sex married couples have always formed foundational institution in our countries. ~The book of Genesis records that opposite-sex marriage was the first institution that God created. Same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the Bible. 3. Same-sex marriages bolster the economy: Assertion: On 2000-JUL-1, civil unions became available to gay and lesbian couples in the state of Vermont. It is a partial marriage arrangement; the spouses do not receive any of the over 1,000 federal benefits that married people obtain through marriage. "...while the impact of civil unions on the Vermont economy is hard to quantify precisely, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that it has given a significant bump to tourism in certain parts of the state." 1 Rebuttal: ~A state or country can also boost their tourist business by legalizing prostitution, allowing physician assisted suicide, legalizing street drugs, or decriminalizing child molesting. But that does not make any of these sinful behaviors right. 4. Same-sex marriage has a civilizing influence on the country: Assertion: Canada and the U.S. are multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic societies. To paraphrase William Eskridge, Jr. in his book "The case for same-sex marriage:" North American society is a synergy of African, Chinese, English, Filipino, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Jewish, Mexican, Native American, Puerto Rican and other cultures; of Black, Caucasian, and other races; of Islam, Judaism, Pro-*test*-('")ant, Roman Catholic, and other religions; of people with bisexual heterosexual, and homosexual orientations; etc. Most of these segments of society have been militantly opposed in the past by the majority. Consider North America's "history of anti-Semitism, nativist sentiment against new immigrants, and interracial prejudice. Time after time, group hatred has been replace by group acceptance and cooperation. Cooperating with others, people learn and grow....The history we...point to with pride is a history of accommodation and inclusion. The history...we would rather forget, and should try to correct, is our history of prejudice and exclusion." 2 Oppression of, and discrimination against, gays and lesbians is the last major hurdle for us to overcome in order to become a fully accepting society. Anton N. Marco, of Christian Leadership Ministries, calls same-sex marriage "The Last Cultural Frontier." 3 Rebuttal: ~Most conservative Christians, and some others, believe that homosexuality is a chosen, sinful, God-denying lifestyle. If we allow gays and lesbians to marry, then essentially all social impediments which discourage this lifestyle will be removed. More youths will choose to become homosexual. AIDS and other STDs will increase. More people will enter a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive lifestyle. 5. Same-sex marriage would increase the quality of life of same-sex couples: Assertion: "To Have and to Hold," a pamphlet distributed by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, states that: "If legally married, gay, lesbian and bisexual couples would have a greater ability to care for and protect their families. The pamphlet mentions many items of financial benefit, including: file joint tax returns; obtain joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; inherit automatically in the absence of a will; secure workplace and other benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, Medicare; enter jointly into leases and other contracts, such as apartment and car rental agreements; obtain bereavement leave when a partner or child dies; receive divorce protections, etc. In addition, there are many non-financial benefits: being able to visit one's spouse in hospital; being able to handle funeral arrangements of one's spouse; obtaining domestic violence protection orders; being recognized as as the next-of-kin for hospital visits; making medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, etc. Rebuttal: ~Such benefits merely make homosexual lifestyle more attractive and thus will encourage more youths and young adults to chose a homosexual lifestyle. 6. Same-sex marriage would improve the lives of children in SSM families: Assertion: With marriage comes the right to raise children together including: joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation privileges. If the marriage ends in divorce, then settlements can be obtained that assure economic protection of the children via child support. Rebuttal: ~Most conservative Christians, and some others, believe that homosexuality is a chosen, sinful, God-denying lifestyle. If we allow gays and lesbians to marry, then any children that they bring into the marriage will be brought up in the homosexual lifestyle. Both parents would be of the same gender. The children of the family would miss the needed influence of an opposite-sex parent. Being raised in a gay or lesbian household, the children will more likely choose to become homosexuals later in life. 7. SSM would reduce the amount of promiscuity in the gay community: Assertion: Gays, lesbians, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers generally agree that homosexuality itself is an fixed, unchosen orientation, not a changeable chosen lifestyle. That said, there are two lifestyles within the homosexual community, as there is within the heterosexual community: single and married. Surveys show that single male gay adults have, on average, a large number of sexual partners. Making SSM available will encourage them to form lasting relationships, marry, and become monogamous. Rebuttal: ~Surveys show that homosexuals in committed relationships are rarely monogamous.We should encourage gays and lesbians to enter reparative therapy and become heterosexuals. SSM would make this less likely. 8. SSM would decrease the incidence of STDs in the gay community: Assertion: As for the preceding argument, the availability of SSM would encourage more homosexuals to form long-term partnerships, become married, and leave the single lifestyle. This would reduce the number of sexual partners, and thus the incidence of STD transmission. SSM would have more of an effect on male gays than on lesbians, because the rate of STD infection among lesbians is already low -- lower than that for heterosexuals. Rebuttal: ~Again, surveys show that homosexuals in long-term relationships are rarely monogamous. References: 1 Sally Johnson, "Civil unions bring dollars into Vermont," The Barre Montpelier Times Argus, 2003-JUN-26, at: http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/67689.html 2 William Eskridge, "Case for same-sex marriage," Free Press, (1996). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store 3 Anton N. Marco, "Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?" Christian Leadership Ministries, at: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage1.html 4 "To Have and to Hold," A pamphlet distributed by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, (1995). 5 Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," Alfred A. Knopf, (1995), Page 183.

View Full Version: (Reference) Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions