Maryland's Doug Mainwaring: Not All Gay Men Support Gay Marriage


A gay man writes in the Potomac Tea Party Report on "The Myth of the Same Sex Marriage Mandate":

The issue of same sex marriage has been hijacked by politicians and ideologues in the interest of pursuing broader political gain.

Sadly, at the same time it also has been turned into a faux-civil rights issue, diminishing the meaning of the centuries-long struggle by Blacks for equality. If this truly were a matter of civil rights, President Obama would have unhesitatingly championed same sex marriage throughout his presidency, knowing that he is on the side of right. In the President’s own words his views on gay marriage are “evolving.” Why? Because his support is the product of complicated political calculations, not a heartfelt sense of justice.

The same holds true for Maryland’s Governor O’Malley. Until a few months ago, Governor Martin O’Malley was content to stay in the background on same sex marriage, clearly revealing that he does not view this as a legitimate civil rights issue. If he did, he would have been out in front of this on both a state and a national level long ago. His current vocal support is nothing more than treading safely in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s larger footsteps, all in the name of political opportunism.

Judging by current statistics, a mandate to institute same sex marriage doesn’t exist — even among gays and lesbians. Not supposition, empirical fact.


  1. Posted March 1, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Male supporters of SSM undermine their own paternity rights.

  2. ResistSSA
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Great article - Make sure you read all of it. The most important concept revealed is:

    "The gay community is not the driving force behind same sex marriage. Who is? Liberal elites who seek to engineer our society, who feel they could create a utopia if only people weren’t so tied to their families, to their religion, to their traditions and beliefs."

    Homosexuals are being used as pawns in an attempt for a government takeover of our lives. Why are our GOP leaders unable to or afraid to communicate this message? Santorum gets it, but he's unable to argue it.

  3. JR
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Relax Resist. I know hundreds of gay people and cannot count any who opposes marriage equality efforts. Many heterosexuals also believe in equality. As gay people make up only 7-8% of the population it is only natural that heterosexuals who want to be on the right side of history will lead the fight for marriage equality.

  4. Louis E.
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    JR,see and stop pretending cooperating in a potential disaster is being on the right side.

  5. Zack
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink


    Gay people actually make up roughly 3-4% of the population.

    But still. NOM. You should know better! Those homosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage are sellouts and self-loathing!

  6. Zack
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink


  7. JR
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Zack-Where do you get your 3-4% data from? I know some self-loathing homosexuals who regularly post comments here. I think you know how they are. I won't name names.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    The actually make up less than 2% of the population according to the most recent U.S. census on this subject - no different than any other club that identifies itself by the things its members like to do.

  9. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    This piece nails it. So does ResistSSA. SSM supporters (gay and straight) are being used. Also interesting that less than 3% of LGBT-identified people have actually donated to support SSM. That's hardly a compelling argument they care about it.

  10. ResistSSA
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    JR -

    If you read the article, you'd see that the issue is not whether homosexuals support SS"M," it's the fact they're not really interested in getting married.

    Nobody, not even the homosexuals, care about whether homosexuals get married or not. Liberals are trying to destroy the traditional family in a governmental power grab, and they are using the homosexual community - who, again, aren't all that interested in getting married - to further their objectives.

    I think that not only are the homosexuals being used as pawns, but so are the liberal, emotional, youth. If the People understood that the SS"M" movement is about destroying traditional families, and not about equality for homosexuals, we'd see a huge push-back against SS"M."

    Go Santorum!

  11. Zack
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink


    Look up this study: "The Demographics of Same-Sex „Marriages“
    in Norway and Sweden"

    It tells you the population of homosexuals in proportion to the rest of the population.

  12. Zack
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Nevermind here it is:

  13. Zack
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    OKay that's only part of it....ugh

  14. leo
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    I think is more 2-3% of the population... JR is obviously way off!

  15. Greogry
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Mainwaring's logic is dubious. One of the blogs I follow just put up a post:

  16. ResistSSA
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Gregory -

    Perhaps Mainwaring knows the truth about sexuality: it is NOT immutable. And perhaps Mainwaring himself chose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. To those of us who have made the same decision, the article makes a lot of sense.

  17. JR
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Resist - Are you sating you have "chosen a homosexual lifestyle"?

  18. Ash
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I just finished reading Part 2 of this series, and I will get to Part 3 later on. All I can say is that I’m floored by the analysis of Mr. Mainwaring. What makes this read even more delightful is the fact that this man is a fellow Marylander. Living in a deep-blue state, conservatives can feel drowned in a sea of liberalism. I know that there are conservatives around, but I don’t hear too much from them. So naturally, I’m blessed to see Marylanders rise up to write and speak about the issue of marriage in a thoughtful way. Thanks to NOM, I’ve read the writings of Maryland physician, Ruth Jacobs, Maryland citizen, Melanie Baker, and now Maryland author, Doug Mainwaring.

    I’ve always believed that gays are not automatically in favor of ssm; and that it’s possible for them to believe that marriage is, and should remain, an opposite-sexed union. The belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman makes sense, and so it’s not hard for me to assume that the idea makes sense to many gays—especially intelligent ones. Doug Mainwaring is one of those gays. There were so many good things in his exposition that I’ll just settle for saying that I’m glad to have heard of him, and of the Potomac Tea Party Report.

    Thanks, NOM! This made my day! :)

  19. Randy E King
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink


    I know as many in the "community" as you do; each and evey one is not "exclusively homosexual" according to the dozens I know of - according to them directly and by witnessed accounts.

    One recently lost his partner and has now decided to marry the mother of his only son.

    Your "who are you going to believe; me, or your lying eyes?" routine is not going to be enough to carry the day for you folks this go around.

  20. twingirl2
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Read the whole article, all three parts. It is well reasoned on marriage. He argues against "gay marriage" (says it is an oxymoron) and for "civil unions". Most interesting are the statistics in states that have already legalized "samesex marriage"; very very few gays are actually getting marriage licenses. I wonder then, why would they want "civil unions" either!

  21. John Noe
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    This JR guy spouts rubbish when he mentions the 8% of the population. Pure hogwash. That is like going to a public event and saying right there one out of 12 people is homosexual.
    The 2-3% is more like it.

    Resist is right. It is the power grab by the liberal elites to justify a future socialist state. In the European countries it is the socialists who are pushing this. They know SSM really destroys the family, marriage, and stability.
    Thus they can swoop in and declare a state need to control all aspects of our life.

  22. ResistSSA
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Right, John Noe. You destroy the notion of traditional family by saying that marriage no longer has anything to do with procreation; that is, you don't need to get married to have children. Then, you end up with a bunch of women who can barely support themselves opting to have babies, and those women and their children become dependent on the government for support.

    Look at the African American community where there's a 70% illegitimacy rate and an associated high percentage of those women and children requiring government support. And what party do those women and children vote for? The one that keeps sending them the checks; the socialists.

    But rather than talk about how children born out-of-wedlock increase poverty, the liberal elites couch the subject in terms of women's rights and point to the few well-off, Murphy Brown types who are fiscally capable of raising a child on their own.

  23. Gregory
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Actually, @John Noe, the 2008 exit interviews found that 5% identified as gay or lesbian and those certainly understate the subject population. But it doesn't matter. As David said at the Slowly Boiled Frog, it is a principle that is at issue regardless of whether one gay couple wants to marry or thousands. That, by the way, is the gaping hole in Mainwaring's argument.

  24. Greogry
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    ResistSSA, So your argument is that he chooses to be gay and then chooses to rail against gay rights rather than choosing not to be gay? Huh?

    Given the amount of opprobrium and oppression that LGBT people suffer - particularly LGBT teens - choosing one's sexuality is a dubious argument.

    Even Exodus now admits that nobody changes their sexual orientation. Some "ex-gays" pretend to be straight but the vast majority choose to be celibate.

    Were it a choice there would be millions of ex-gays rather than about 1,200 - virtually all of whom are devout Christians.

  25. Chairm
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Gregory you are sounding an awful lot like the racist supremicists who talk about purity of their identity group and also about the shams or traitors of their identity group.

    SSM would e segregative by sex and by sexual attracton and by group identity.

    Marriage unites the sex, man and woman, integrates male attraction wth female attraction, nd bars no one for the identity ... no man-womanmarriage is deemed a sham based on purity of group identiy.

    If identity was analogous to race
    then,the SSM campaign is on "the wrong side of history".

    The participations rates in SSM ((under whatever guise ... SSM, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or just same-sex householding) is very, very low and declining even in highly gay-friendly places. SSM would be a very poor vehicle for delivey of government benefits to a population that just is not voting Es with their feet.

  26. M. Jones
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, how do we counter the SS"m" extremist argument that there is no evidence to suggest their marriages take anything away from other couples in traditional marriage. They argue "marriage unites SS couples, man and man or woman and woman, and integrates their sexual attraction too, with no bars for identity and takes nothing away from other couples or changes their relationship into sex segregative ones.

  27. JR
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    I stand by my 7-8% figure. I attended an all boys Catholic high school in NYC and graduated in a class of 115 students a bit more than 30 years ago. The alumni association is quite large at the school and I did some work for my class as an alumni rep. Of those 115, including myself, there are 10 confirmed homosexual. Additionally there are another 6 who I would say are questionable. Taking just half of the 6 as homosexual gives 13 or more than 10%. I have spoken to gay friends in other classes and they seem to find close to 10% of their classmates to be gay. I comfortably stand by my 7-8% figure. Yes John Noe, about 1 in every 13 people you may randomly encounter is gay.

  28. ResistSSA
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Gregory -

    I ditched my inclination to act on my same-sex attraction years ago. The longer I've been away from it, the less interest I had in it. I chose to be exclusively heterosexual, and I am. With a wife and three kids, no fear of acquiring STDs, loads of friends who share my exact circumstances, it was the best choice I ever made. And believe me, I had considered choosing the other direction because I met a great guy (who, incidentally, was contemplating marrying a woman someday), and guy-guy relationships are much less complicated than male-female relationships. Plus, the sex is there whenever you want it. I get the appeal; it's just a bad choice.

    Believe it or not, there is such thing as a gay conservative; gay people who recognize that traditional marriage is the foundation of all civilized societies, and that SS"M" is inconsequential to how they live their lives. If you're gay and have no intention of getting married, have a circle of friends, family and co-workers who don't judge you based on your sexuality, and you believe that the government should not be overburdened with the diversion of tax dollars to, say, homosexual partners, I can see why you would could be against efforts to legalize SS"M".

  29. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Very scientific, JR...not.

  30. Posted March 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    "about 1 in every 13 people you may randomly encounter is gay."

    Even if your estimate was correct, what does it matter? Marriage has always been organized around sex, specifically sex integration.

    Why should we change that? If we're all to be treated equally under the law, then sexual orientation is a non-issue.

  31. JR
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    I agree Barb. My high school was however overwhelmingly white although of many ethnic different backgrounds and lower to middle class. We came from all over the NYC metropolitan area. Most all were raised by their biological mother and father. A few were adopted and a small minority had a deceased parent. An even smaller minority had parents who were divorced. One had to be Catholic to attend the school and I attended the school in the 1970's.

  32. ResistSSA
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    JR - Homosexuality is a learned characteristic. All boys school in the ultra-experimental liberals 70s. Yeah, definitely an outlier if your figures are correct.

  33. John N.
    Posted March 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Let me help out my good friend John Noe here and show that his statement is correct. The 7-8% figure is high as that is stating if at random I went to a football game one in twelve guys there is homosexual. No way Jose and this JR guy is trying to make us drink the Kool Aid.
    A good case in point is in MA where they allowed same sex marriage. Less than 1% of the marriages in this state is same sex. So much for that 10% figure.

  34. Chairm
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    M. Jones, the response is that the marriage law already s neutral on identity group and on sexual orientation. The SSMer wants society and government to read into the law stuff that is not there. He wants the law changed to favor identity politics.

    But this is at odds with the SSMer's complaint that gay identity is not a legitimate basis for making law on eligibility to marry. He contradicts his own argument and defeats himself.

    Also the SSMer likens sexual attraction to race but the one human race is two-sexed. That answers both those who subdivide humanknd by race and those who would subdivide humankind by sexual-attraction-likened-to-race.

    The SSMer says that the man-woman requirement is like a sexual attraction requirement. Of course that is only a metaphor ... a simile is a type of metaphor ... and really just has a figurative and not a literal meaning.

    I say that because the SSMer brushes aside the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage law (see consummation, annulment, adultery, and paternity for the legl requirements i marriage law) and says there is no legal requirement for two-sexed sexual behavior; he does that and he says that because there is no legal requirement that makes samesex sexual behavior mandatory anyplace where SSM is available. And there is no such proposal.

    The SSMer routinely says something just like that about procreation, remember. This lack of a legal requirement is decisive we are told over and over.

    So SSM does take something away from marriage. From existing and all future marriages.

    But let'stake the SSMer at his word. The man-woman requirement makes the typical husband and wife a union based on sexual attraction. Okay, but that would make SSM segregative by sexual attraction.

    The man-only version of SSM segregates by male attraction; and the female-only version segregates by female attraction. Marriage unites male attraction with female attraction.

    If we take the SSMer at his word, then, this SSM thing is a brazen example of "seperate but equal"and that is something the SSMer dislikes when using his own metaphor that sexual attraction is like race.

    Just as no relationship that is one-sexed can integrate the sexes within it, no instance of SSM can integrate by sexual attraction within it. This so whether the same-sexed relationship is homosexual or heterosexual. SSM does not integrate by sexual attraction.

    The SSMer routinely dismisses as "shams" those lawful unions of husband wife where male attraction and female attraction are combined ... such as a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman ... or a homosexual woman and a homosexual man. The SSM idea is for purity we are told; for the exclusively male attracted men or for the exclusively female attracted women. Purity by attraction and purity by gay identity. Ths echoes the proponents of the racist filter.

    Marriage integrates whereas SSM segregaes.

    Okay but whatabout the SSMer who switches his argument to integration of homosexuality with heterosexuality under the law supposedly applid equally?

    That is, if we take the SSMer at his word again, he demands that the eigibility law be changed to merge SSM with marriage.That would mean either the merger would treat all unions of husband wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives (taking away from marriages) or the merger will entrench "seperate but equal" by continuing to apply the two-sexed sexal basis to marriage but a nonsexual basis to SSM.

    Nonsexual? Yeap.

    Consider: there is no same-sex sexual basis by which to presume a man can impregnate another man; and no same-sex sexual basis to presume a woman was impregnated by another woman. Thus there an be no same sex sexual basis for a legal default whereby samesex sexual behavior obliges two men to coparent or two women tocoparent. It can only be optional. No SSM could justly force coparenting on someone against his or her consent. Consent, remember is a decisive factor in SSM arguments.

    Bt when people say, I do, it means, by default, one thing for the union of husband and wife and a different thing for an all-male or an all-female arrangement (sexualized or not, homosexual or not, gay identified or not) because of the lack of the other sex and the lack of a two-sexed sexual basis.

    In addition there can be no legal requirement for sexual behavior that is the same for the man-only version of SSM and for the woman-only version of SSM; indeed SSM in the law has no legal requirement for shared sexual behavior. So that cannot be a legitimate basis for lawmaking ... not for establishing a special status for SSM nor for drawing lines of ineligibility to SSM.

    So the merger of SSM with marriage would take away from marriage what makes marriage, marriage, and what justifies its special status, and what justifies drawing lines of eligibility.

    Alternatively the SSM merger would take away none of that and would just be a way to show favoritism for the gay identiy group and would do so with an entrenchment of "separate but equal." The SSMer is supposedly aganst unequal treatment.

    From what I have seen, the imposition of SSM takes away AND entrnches unequal treatment based on indentity politics. That is signalled by the false claim that the marriage idea is bigoted and thus is inferiror to the SSM idea which cannot distinguish SSSM from nonmarriage except by an exerciseof arbitrary governmental power. Arbitrariness is supposed to be a no-no in the eyes of the SSMer.

    The racist identity politics of the old animiscegenation system was abolished in law because it is unconstitutional to discriminate in favor of a group's claim to supremacy. But SSM is promoted with an unmistakable emphasis on gay identity politics being made supreme to the meaning of marriage and supreme to the law and to justice. Favoritism for the sake of segregation is morally and legally wrongheaded.

    * * * *

    In short, unlike marriage, SSM is segregative and is a threat to the special place of the social institution in our society.

    The SSSMer uses gay identity politics the way that racist used identity politics to distort marriage law.

    And it also promotes the entrenchment in law, in governmental policy, and in the culture the upside down axiom that it is bigoted and hateful for society to show preference for the unity of motherood and fatherhood. We have been through that with the racist filter and now the SSMer demands we regress to that again via the gay filter.

    SSM is a vehicle for a differet agenda and it is not a promarriage agenda. It is blatantly progay and little else.

  35. Chairm
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Gregory, the argument has no such gaping hoe. You would rather change to a different argument.

    The argument about the very low participation rates in SSM and the very low participation rates in funding is really that there is no popular mandate for what the SSM campaign is doing in the name of the subpopulation of homosexual adults.

    You would switch to an argument about a principle, whatever you might propose, which is not mandated by pent up demand or by popular support measured in participation in funding the project. It is measured solely in principle.

    If there is one incestuous couple keen on participating in SSM then you would have to reject the pro SSM backhandeddismissal based on the supposed lack of a big movement or lack of a pentup demand and such. You would decide on the application of the principle ... whatever that might be.

    Likewise with polyamory and polygamy and age of consent to marry. All it takes is the principle and not other measurable factors.

    That being the case,and taking you at your word, you owe the discussion a clear statement of the decisive principle you think applies.

    Sexual attraction might weigh heavily in your assessment, given your earlier comments. Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is common enough and yet the eligibility to marry takes relatedness into account to deny some people what you demand for those whose sexual attraction you liken to race.

    Perhaps you would explain how you would apply the principle you have in mind.

    While you are at it, consider that the marital union makes husband and wife as closely related as, if not more closely related than, siblings whose friendship is not sexual. If sexual attraction is decisive, you might rely on people regulating themselves and self-disqualifying, even if eligible,based on a public understanding that marriage is a sexual type of relationship. That self-disqualification would not prevent the sexually attracted siblings who'd choose the very status that you demand based on sexual attraction. GSA seems to fit the SSM idea.

    But also consider that if marital status recognizes the couple as more closely related than siblings, eligibility to marry would make the siblings related in a new and stronger way. Does your principle provide the basis for denying that stronger tie?

    Here is a paradox that SSM fails to handle or to address in any substantive way.

    The married couple are very closely related. They may lawfully engage in sexual relations together. The SSM idea presupposes SSM to be a nion based on sexual attraction and sexual relations. There is no legal requirement for that in anyplace where SSM has been imposed or enacted. Is SSM really a sexual type of relationship in the eyes of the law. Limit your response to the application of the principle you propose based on sexual attraction.

    Another paradox. Given that incestuous sexual relations may be deemed immoral and unlawful, what is it about marriage, do you think, that makes it okay for a couple, now very closely related by law and by custom, to engage in incestuous sexual behavior together? Whatever your response please feature the principle you think is at stake regarding sexual attraction.

    I would think that you will need to return to the eligibility criterion that limits marriage based on relatedness. If marriage is for unrelated people then why would marriage make bride and groom so closely related?How does marriage transform unrelated people into related people ... surly there is no genetic change.

    1. Bride and groom must be not closely related; but why is that?

    2. Husband and wife are very closely related; but how does that happen?

    3. If sexual attraction is the basis for eligibility to marry, how can it be okay to deny closely related people who are sexually attracted?

    4. If even closely related people would become more closely related with marital status, why deny that status if the SSM law is to be neutral on sexual attraction and would also not make sexual attraction or sexual behavior mandatory?

    Participation rates are irrelevant. The size of the subpopulation also irrelevant. You said so. You rely on the principle invoked by sexual attraction and neutrality.

    Your response will be appreciated.

  36. leehawks
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Well JR, I dispute what you said in #27. I attended a fairly liberal coed catholic school in a very liberal college town for 12 years. My graduating class had 62 kids in it and to my knowledge NONE of them are gay and trust me.... I would have heard about it at the reunions for the past 30+ years. Those girls knew everything about everybody.