Dear Friends of Marriage,
The defense rested in the Prop 8 trial this week. The same week, as it happens, a new government study came out which examined how family structure affects child abuse.
The study, released by the Office of Planning Research and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is called "Fourth National Incident Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4)."
Ted Olson and David Boies have claimed that Science Says there is no evidence that kids need a mom and dad. That's just the rednecks confusing the research, which only says two adults in a family are better than one. The only reason people think a mom and dad are special is, well, because they hate gay folks.
Well, stay with me a second. This new study did not just compare married parents to single parents. Instead it compared married biological parents to four other family structures: solo parents, cohabiting parents, other married parents, and children living with no parents at all.
What family form best protects children from one of the worst harms of all--child abuse? The answer is: the child's own mom and dad united by marriage.
It wasn't even close.
Let me quote you the hard data:
"Children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, at 6.8 per 1,000 children. This rate differs significantly from the rates for all other family structure and living arrangement circumstances."
It wasn't just solo parents who had problems.
Children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment (57.2 per 1,000). Their rate is more than 8 times greater than the rate for children living with two married biological parents.
The incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment also is significantly higher for children living with one parent and that parent's unmarried partner than for children in three other conditions: children living with other married parents (24.4 children per 1,000), those living with two unmarried parents (23.5 children per 1,000), and those living with a single parent with no partner in the household (28.4 children per 1,000). The risk of Harm Standard maltreatment for children whose single parent has an unmarried partner is more than 2 times greater than the risk for children living in these other living arrangements.
Our president, Maggie Gallagher, wrote about this on NOM's blog: "New Study: Married Biological Parents Best." (Are you signed up for twitter notices, which tell you when new stuff is posted on our blog? Go here to sign up!) Maggie writes:
Here's my question for Ted and David as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families. (Perhaps that is true even though your own expert witness admits there is no research on how well two gay men raise children, and there is no nationally representative study that follows children raised from birth to adulthood by same-sex [couples] and compares how they do to children in other family forms).
Perhaps.
But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder? Ted and David, I'm wondering: not even a little bit?
Probably not when it comes to Ted and David, but the rest of us in the reality-based community understand that marriage really does matter because it's the only way to connect a child to his own mom and dad.
All children are gifts from God and deserve our respect. All parents working hard to raise good kids also deserve our respect and help. But there is no call to wipe out the ideal itself, rooted in Nature and Nature's God, and replace it with a man-made fantasy that same-sex unions are just the same as the one kind of union that best protects children.
We are not hopeful that Judge Walker is going to do justice to the 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife--especially not after his rush to break all the rules to televise this trial resulted in the lost of key expert witnesses' testimony.
Respect for voting rights doesn't appear to be at a premium these days among certain judges. In D.C. NOM is working hard (working with the extraordinary leadership of Bishop Harry Jackson and others) to give the citizens of D.C. the right to vote for marriage. Dozens of Congressmen and Senators are meeting with us and others to figure out the best way to protect not only marriage, but the democratic rights of the people of D.C. from a city council (and a local court) determined to deprive them of their rights.
I met this week with Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), who has taken a real leadership position on the voting rights of the people of D.C. And he understands that this includes the right to vote for marriage. Thank you Congressman Pence!
Truth and love will prevail, in the end, over lies and hate.
Because God is Himself Truth and Love, we need never be afraid.
Thank you for all you do for marriage, truth and democracy.
Until next week, keep fighting the good fight!
God's blessings on you always,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
PS: NOM relies on your help! This new year will bring many new challenges, and NOM needs to be ready to respond quickly. Can you help us with a monthly gift of $5, $10, or even $20? We truly appreciate whatever you can give--and most of all, we appreciate and thank you for your prayers, and for standing strong for marriage.
NOM Featured Article
"Putting Religion on Trial?"
Maggie Gallagher
January 26, 2010
The kid in the audience -- he seems a kid to me, just 20 years old -- asks me a question:
"You say gay marriage will lead to the use of the law to repress traditional faiths including Christianity. But I was raised in a Southern Baptist family. When I came out, I lost my sister. What is wrong with the idea that religions will be pressured to be less anti-gay?"
NOM in the News
"The Case of the Incurious Economists"
Jennifer Roback Morse
American Thinker
January 17, 2010
I recently participated in a round-table discussion about marriage, freedom, and the state. Most of the participants were libertarians and economists. The default position of virtually everyone in the room was a presumption in favor of redefining marriage as the union of any two persons. Normally, economists and libertarians take pride in tracking the changes in incentives as far through society as possible. Yet on the subject of same-sex marriage, these economists seemed uncharacteristically incurious. They seem to think same sex-marriage will affect only the handful of people who 1) currently identify themselves as gay or lesbian, 2) are partnered, and 3) want to get married. My economist friends do not seem to see that redefining marriage will create changes in the social incentive structure for everyone. If I'm right, the behavior of many millions of people could be in play.
"What Family Structure Prevents Child Abuse?"
Maggie Gallagher
The Corner on National Review Online
January 28, 2010
Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?
Answer: Married biological parents.
"Prop 8 'From Bad to Worse'?"
Maggie Gallagher
The Corner on National Review Online
January 27, 2010
Prof. Dale Carpenter, a Federalist Society member, law professor, gay-marriage advocate (and gay man), is dour about the prospects for victory (from his point of view) in the Prop 8 trial. He says Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement makes an unlikely scenario even more unlikely, going from bad to worse.
"Future of Marriage Law Murky As Prop 8 Challenge Begins"
National Catholic Register
January 25, 2010
"If [same-sex 'marriage' forces] win at the Supreme Court level, they will have imposed a national right to gay 'marriage' in all 50 states," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "That's their goal. That's what they're asking for."
"2 Moms, 1 Child and the Law"
Utica Observer-Dispatch
January 23, 2010
"There is no civil right to redefine marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. "Marriage is based on biological reality that children do deserve a mother and father. This reality of marriage would be fundamentally turned on its head in redefining it through legislation."
"Obama Urges Senate to Hold Off on Health Care"
CBN News
January 21, 2010
NOM Executive Director Brian Brown appeared on CBN News' Midday program to explain why his organization was encouraged by Scott Brown's election. Click play for his comments.
"Debating Same-Sex Marriage at CU"
Colorado Daily
January 24, 2010
The ever-controversial subject of same-sex marriage will be hashed out tonight on the University of Colorado campus as part of the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought's third-annual "Great Debate" series.
Guest speakers Jonathan Rauch (pro) and Maggie Gallagher (con) will tackle the question "Should the Government Approve Same-Sex Marriage?" at 7 tonight in CU's Chem 140 lecture hall.
"Gallagher and Rauch Debate Same-Sex 'Marriage' in Boulder"
Catholic News Agency
January 26, 2010
The debaters were Maggie Gallagher, an author, social commentator and the president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer for National Journal magazine and an author of several books on public policy, culture and economics.
"Scott Brown for Marriage Amendment"
Canada Free Press
January 25, 2010
Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, saw it much differently, calling the election 'a victory for marriage.'
76 Comments
I believe this is another example that shows that the people of CA didn't vote irrational.
Mom's and Dad's matters and there are logical and multiple studies that reveal this.
Well, does this mean that NOM will campaign against single people or cohabiting partners being able to raise children? And against divorce?
Scott Bailey, does this mean you're going to start pushing legislation that lists single parents or divorced parents as "married"?
NOM is simply stating that Traditional marriage between mom and a dad are rational choices for voting for it instead of gay marriage. Don't read anything more into until you pass biology class.
This is B.S. "All children are a gift from God" is an empty platitude homily that cannot be proven. These statistics also DO NOT include LGBT parents in the study...therefore the argument supporting this research rings just as hollow.
The truth is this: This is America. All people are equal. All people have the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The courts will enofre it. You don't have to like it, but you cannot stop it. If you don't like someone else's version of happiness...tough. Go to Iran.
LOL. Jersey girl sounds like my 12 year old having one of her meltdowns.
There are an infinite amount of scenarios that would still cause a "mom and dad" marriage to not properly raise a child. Scenarios ranging from one parent working long hours to an extreme where one parent is sexually abusing a child will still cause a "mom and dad" family to fail. I doubt every gay marriage will result in adoption, and those family units will be just as good or bad as straight biological family. Realistically, as soon as a child enters school, makes friends and gets a hobby, the parent will have a lot less effect on its behavior.
Jersey girl -
Just try forcing me and MILLIONS of my fellow citizens to accept it. It won't happen because there will be MASSIVE civil disobedience and there aren't enough courts, attorneys, law enforcement or military personnel to stop the disobedience.
With regards to the study, the usage of the term "biological" parents implies a male and a female - not a male/male or female/female. With regards to your dismissal of this study due to "no LGBT parents," the burden of proof is upon those who wish to disprove this study to supply facts to that extent. This study merely shows what many of us already know - children do best with a mother and a father.
Merilyn,
The SSM argument is that children and marriage are seperate matters. Entirely seperated, in the pro-SSM view.
You emphasized "gay". What is it about gayness that would make a "gay couple" superior to a grandmom-mom duo raising children?
The SSM scenarior with children has a lot in common structurally with lone-parenting (lack of one sex), broken families (either mom or dad is absent), social step-families (nonresident parent but resident nonparent), adoptive step-families (parental relinquishemnt plus government assignment of a substitute), and so forth. The structural similarities matter even if other positive factors might be assumed.
And, no, I don't think it bolsters the SSM argument to throw-up one's arms and say, "Realistically, as soon as a child enters school, makes friends and gets a hobby, the parent will have a lot less effect on its [sic] behavior."
Responsible procreation means the parents are responsible for the well-being, education, and moral formation of their children. The children have an enormous stake in their birthright, which they cannot guard for themselves alone. The parents vouchsafe this birthright and their stake is far grreater than, say, childhood peers or television or even public schools.
Society has a stake, on a different level, and that's why the core meaning of marriage is of such great importance. It is what we inherit from past generations and pass on to the next and future generations.
Marriage works its influences intimately, one family at-a-time, but it cannot be done effectively if Government is set against that core meaning. Because marriage is also a social institution and works its influences society-wide -- one generation at-a-time. The core meaning is not magic, but it is powerful and truthful.
A child's parents have influence even when they are not looking over the child's shoulder. That influence persists throughout life -- even after the death of the parents. We have a great responsibility and even though we are prone to make mistakes we don't have to reinvent marriage one family at-a-time. The accumulated wisdom that is invested in the social institution is there for us to bank on and, in turn, to replenish. That wisdom is far greater than any one individual, any one family, can hope to know fully.
Yes, we send our kids to schools. But, no, we don't send them out of our influence. And that's something that SSMers seem very much set against when it comes to the core meaning of marriage. At least, those hardcore SSMers. Most other SSMers hesitate to declare the Government the owner of this social institution of civil society.
Isn't nice how NOM conveniently doesn't address two things regarding showing the trial on Youtube:
1. Any witness would've been given the option to request that cameras be turned off while they testified; and
2. Since SCOTUS ruled that TVs wouldn't be allowed, why didn't the four other witnesses then testify?
This comment thread shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how CIVIL law and obligation to it works.
To answer Chairm:
no, this does NOT resemble single parenthood at all.
Two parents are two parents. This resembles couples where one is the biological parent of the children as in the case of step parenting, or adoption FROM BIRTH, where NEITHER of the parents has a biological tether or the child has experience with their biological parent.
The assumption about 'best' requires rigid and superficial aspects of gender. That men and women will fulfill the roles you expect BECAUSE they are men or women, not because they are individual imbued with individual ability.
There are sometimes couples of divergent or disparate physical ability and location. Such as prison.
Even they aren't denied even though their abilities are obviously marginal.
So, this standard of discriminating against gay couples around gender does several things, none of which can be legislated and aren't.
This also assumes that two parents of the same gender is a HARMFUL aspect from the two parents.
It also assumes they live in a vacuum with NO other opposite sex influences.
These are assumptions similar to those who didn't think mixed color parents could be competent to raise a mixed child because neither color could be dominant.
And society didn't accept mixed children.
It's also the same assumption made regarding women who worked outside of the home OR didn't want to be mothers at all.
All these are from the preconception that gays, women and people of color are INFERIOR.
Many laws that governed discrimination was based on that.
In reality, there is no legal or civil test FOR a marriage license, that can determine WHAT qualities the perspective couple can or will bring AS a couple, let alone parents.
The 'best' or 'superior' that is connected to descriptors or research regarding competence in marriage or parenting is false.
Or traditionally preferential and requiring no acts of virtue to deserve it.
These are the values placed there artificially, but as this very research shows, there is NO relevance to GAY couples or parents in it.
There is no moral or parenting skills that belong to groups. These are about the individual and their qualities AS individuals and their personal experience and support for their ability.
Saying that heteros make better parents JUST because all anyone knows about them is that they are a man and woman showing up for a marriage license, is just as ridiculous as trying to say white skin or being a man, makes one superior and more qualified for anything too.
But of course, being hetero is given far more unconditional support, which makes the same amount of difference in success or failure as supporting a mixed family would too.
That gay parents have succeeded DESPITE a lack of societal support means that NOM is working at hurting people with much potential to do great good.
BB and MG NEVER mention actually knowing gay parents. Especially gay parents who have adopted children with special needs or hard to place children.
Which, in my opinion IS God's work.
Taking in children that have no one.
So, I ask this question.
This is about treating gay people EQUALLY. Gay couples are required to adhere to the SAME standards of marriage and WERE, until bans like in CA shut it down.
There are heteros who don't have and don't want children who marry.
Same as some gay couples.
There are hetero parents who are the biological parents of their children, have adopted children or are step parents.
The SAME is true for many gay couples.
Now, since it's legally impossible to MAKE a couple keep to their vows and attend to their spousal and parental duties.
I mean, so many marriages and children HAVE been abandoned and neglected:
why KEEP adults FROM doing the right thing?
How does it HELP society or could possibly be rational and supportable to LEGALLY put gay couples in that position when doing so to anyone else WOULD be more than spiteful?
That is to say, why is it when GAY people do the EXACT same thing that heteros are considered heroic for doing, NOM says it's BAD or NOT AS GOOD?
I have as yet to see or hear a RATIONAL reason for such determined war against especially the CHILDREN of gay couples.
But of course, legally, people don't require the intent or ability of children to marry.
But NOM and others insist on making this issue about that.
If you can point to ANY state that discriminates against a couple on the basis of not procreating or intending to, have at it.
That's just one example of the double and impossible standards set aside exclusively for gay couples.
And, even after ALL the money, expense, energy and effort gay couples were forced to put into STAYING legally married and capable of securing themselves OR their children:
the typical assaults on marriages and families remain a constant.
Like violence, divorce, abuse, neglect, poverty, addiction and adultery.
If NOM went after THOSE issues with the zeal they've gone after gay people committing to being responsible, I'd have more respect for the public at large for it too.
Declaring war on gay couples AND their children if they have them, doesn't even have social benefit to point to for all the effort on both sides.
Has Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher personally EVER adopted a child no one wanted, or had experience with taking in special needs children difficult to place like those with HIV or drug damage for example?
Because I know a LOT of gay parents who have.
And their children sure could be helped by having married parents.
Making up all kinds of excuses and false assumptions about 'superiority' flies in the face when it results in harming those who don't meet such unrealistic criteria as NOM and this thread put forth.
Oh..and.
The state of MA and IA are excellent examples of legal precedent to how the judges came by their decisions or legislation did.
It's not radical, militant or even activism that led to it, but a matter of simply reading OTHER traditions and standards that have stood this country and society in good stead.
Such as equality for disenfranchised minorities. Considered, reasonable and faithful adherence to what those standards mean, and the results, even though there was societal objections in the beginning.
Our country DOES have a creed and important mission statement to live up to.
MA and Western countries like Canada, Spain have had marriage equality for YEARS now.
And NONE, NONE of the conjectured rationales, nor any of the statistics from countries like Sweden oft used as an example of gay marriage on other societies, have held up.
Mostly because Sweden had downward trends anyway, and those were due to social welfare programs replacing what marriage did.
So just like this research cited here, the change in marriage trends had NOTHING to do with gay couples getting married.
Equal standards should say what they mean, and mean what they say.
And disqualifying gay couples FROM those standards, despite hetero couples living in similar circumstances would only make sense to someone with little confidence IN those equal standards, how much they benefit from them, regardless that they don't want a minority like gay people to benefit as well.
This is about gay people AS WELL, not INSTEAD OF what a hetero person wants for themselves.
Both can and SHOULD have it, because nothing is compromised if you do in this case.
The only thing that suffers is the fiction that there is inherent supremacy in any human being over another.
And why would anyone have a problem with that?
And btw, and I think only a black person, such as myself would notice this.
Sometimes there are subtler forms of prejudice that manifest in expecting and addressing certain people as if they are children and deserve to be treated as such.
It's the condescending ways in which straight people feel entitled to tell gay people why they are gay, how, and what they should do with it.
Like not forming romantic adult bonds, raise children, not assume certain roles in faith communities, not have certain professions or get married.
And most of all, not challenge the authority of the dominant culture, nor protest no matter how hurtful, abusive, spiteful or dangerously that culture acts towards you.
THAT is the role and social position of a child.
I've known segregationists who have that same attitude about blacks. And I see the echo of that in how gay people are expected to be treated or respond to it.
And gay people have no more political power than blacks did, or persuasiveness that they aren't threatening to society at large.
After all, it's hard to fight constant and persistent stereotypes that the defenders of Prop. 8 used to full effect as willfully as segregationists who insisted that black men were sexually perverted, aggressive and unnaturally attracted to white women.
This is a familiar ring someone who wasn't raised around it would understand. Let alone empathize with it.
The hurt and anger manifested after Prop. 8 was spoken of as if the people at the rallies were throwing tantrums for 'not getting their way' rather than a symptom of being mistreated and more vulnerable than ever to social hostility.
Is NOM really trying to say THEY wouldn't react the same way to being involuntarily divorced and thrown into a legally difficult tailspin by millions of strangers?
Well, exactly WHO was it hurting that many thousands of gay couples happily had ceremonies and enjoyed for a hot minute, legal remedies and support for their love and commitment and responsibilities?
NONE of you wouldn't have gotten angry, or felt betrayed by those faceless people who smile at you in public, but don't have the guts to face who it affected directly?
Not even in COURT?
After a WHOLE LOT of public essays, appearances and media access to speak ALL about gay people?
Now suddenly the issue is too hot to discuss in court, let alone so OTHERS can witness just what the opposition says?
Even that reaction is misrepresented by NOM and Maggie Gallagher.
But gay folks have a very hard time representing who they are, intents, purposes and so on in forums they aren't invited to, or have control over.
Courts are about all there is left.
Equal opportunity to air the sheets.
This WAS an important case that SHOULD have been witnessed by the population that voted for or against it.
Cravenly using gay people to hide behind (again) denied millions the opportunity to see just how dirty NOM's sheets have been.
To use Chairm's favorite term, this whole children argument is a "strawman". (You like that one, don't you, Chairm?)
Not all marriages produce children, proof of intent to produce children is not required to marry. Discriminating against couples seeking the protections of marriage based on the children factor would be unconstitutional.
"The SSM argument is that children and marriage are seperate matters. Entirely seperated, in the pro-SSM view."
Inaccurate. Plaintiffs assert that children are but ONE reason to marry. Everyone in America, including Mr. Cooper who represents Proponents as their chief attorney, knows there are several reasons why people decide to get married. In the Summary Judgement case that occurred before the trial, Judge Walker commented to Mr. Cooper that the last marriage he (Walker) officiated, the groom was 95 years old and the bride was 86 years old. Walker asked Copper, "Am I missing something?" Cooper answered "no" and was forced to admit that, indeed, the marriage Judge Walker cited was most certainly a case in which no intention toward procreation and child rearing was implied, nor was the intention required by the couple to make that bond.
See? Conceiving and nurturing children is but ONE purpose. The experts for both Plaintiffs AND Prop 8 cited the same list of SIX important reasons why people decide to marry. Only one reason addressed procreation and raising children. Proponents emphasize that one reason and elevate it's importance above all other reasons.
Regan,
I referred to structural similarities. Your response acknowledged these resemblances.
You counted the number of adults. Perhaps you will compare double-mom scenarios with polygamous scenarios and explain the structural importance of gayness in one and how that makes all the difference.
The standard, or benchmark, against which all other structures are compared, and found wanting, is the intact mom-dad duo united in marriage.
The gay all-male and all-female scenarios have not been extensively studied because this is a very new and experimental.
But it resembles other well-studied family structures. Those structures are not entirely different from the standard, but the differences have been significant.
Read the modern social scientific evidence that has been piling up for about four-five decades. You may have to wait as long to find sufficient evidence to support the claim that gayness makes 'same-sex parenting' superior to the rest of the nonstandard structures.
For now you could at least try to explain how you think that gayness might be the mechanism that would neutralize the disparities. Married step-parenting hasn't done it; so you'd have to explain how gayness does what marital status has not. Likewise with adoption and third party procreation.
Regan said:
"The assumption about ‘best’ requires rigid and superficial aspects of gender."
Same-sex sexual attraction presupposes sex differentiation. And for the socio-political identity of "gay", this is inborn and unchangeable -- meaning there is some sort of birthright asserted.
This is supposed to be highly significant to the adults.
Yet you imagine that sex differentiation is of no significance to children all of whom are born equal, of a man and a woman. You need an extraordinary reason to dismiss their birthright.
Regan, you emphasis on gayness -- on a socio-political group identity -- belies your supposed emphasis on individuality.
Regan said: "legally, people don’t require the intent or ability of children to marry."
The man-woman criterion is a legal requirement. Consent to all that marriage entails, including the marital presumption of paternity, is a legal requirement. The sexual basis for consummation, annulment, and adultery-divorce is the same opposite-sexed basis as for the marital presumption of paternity.
As I said earlier, the SSM argument is that children and marriage are seperate matters. Entirely seperated, in the pro-SSM view.
You have confirmed that. We are in agreement, again.
Regan said:
"Has Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher personally EVER adopted a child no one wanted, or had experience with taking in special needs children difficult to place like those with HIV or drug damage for example?"
Well, contrary to your hyper personalized rant, the contribution of married couples to adoption is far, far, far greater than the entire adult homosexual population.
That includes special needs children in fostercare.
Based on census and related data, about 90% of the adult homosexual population does NOT reside in same-sex households. And about 97% of the adult homosexual population does NOT reside in such households with children.
And most (about 90%) of the relatively very few children who do reside in same-sex households got there by migrating with parents whose previously procreative relationships (i.e. marriages or marriage-like cohabitations) created the children. These kids have both moms and dads. The protections accorded to children of divorce or estranged parents are available to them. SSMers may like to wish away the nonresident parents, but that undermines the arguments you make about equality and the best interests of children. The opposite-sexed sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity protects these children and their parents -- even when the children are moved to same-sex households. SSMers should not cut of their noses to spite these children and their parents.
Adoption is a noble institution but it is not marriage.
Third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people use it.
So you are pointing outside of marriage and not at its core meaning and its essentials.
Maybe for the SSM idea it is essential to point to third party procreation but that serves to remind that the nature of human generativity is opposite-sexed, not sex neutral. Sex differentiation is at the core of marriage. This is what deeply roots the social institution in civil society such that it is the basis for a fundamental right in our Constitutional framework.
SSMers have not provided a rational basis for treating gayness as the decivisve factor that makes gay nonmarraige superior to the rest of nonmarriage. Not social scientifically. Not legally. Not even in simple commons sense terms. They run away from this profound hole in their rhetoric.
Regan,
The pro-SSM court opinions (the legal reasoning) of the MA and IA courts actually exemplify the abuse of judicial review that SSMers depend on.
They also show that the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics is the driving force for the imposition of SSM.
That is closely analogous with the racialist identity politics that the SSM campaign supposedly eschews.
Regan,
Your comments illustrate that the SSM argument is not actually a legal appeal but a social appeal based on emotion rather than reason.
Let's agree to cut down on the emotional hyperbole. Let's agree to abide by neutral rules of argumentation that apply to marriage and to the type of relationship you have in mind. Let's agree that identity politics does not merit pride of place in constitutional jurisprudence.
Chirm,
Mr. Cooper certainly had the opportunity to claim Plaintiffs appeal was a "social appeal". Why didn't he? I know why. That's just double-talk and would laughed out of the courtroom.
Cutting down on the emotional hyperbole would be greatly enhanced if you didn't simply dismiss what others say. Your very strategy of discourse was actually discussed in last week's Prop 8 trial. What you are doing is making your own assertions and then agreeing they you are right and simply assuming that objecting opinions aren't rational since you hold your beliefs so strongly.
Strongly held beliefs are not authoritative. Ergo, you are not authoritative nor accurate.
sorry i didnt have time to catch up on all the comments or even the whole context of this, but someone alluded to the far greater contribution of married couples to the adoption of children than same sex couples. It's so very convenient to shore up your position with statistics that your side controls, or shall we say manufactures. As a gay man, try adoptiong children! Isnt it number 2 on the anti gay agenda after banning same sex marriage--move on to prohibit the adoption of children by gay persons and remediate pre-existing non conforming families by removing thier children?
This is a bit like holding out the "fact" "who knows, i'm not a historian" that historically cultures have never accepted gay marriage. Well, I am assuming that gays were clubbed over the head long before they even got engaged. NOM difinitely doesn't go with the evoluntionary view! Keep in mind, even modern day cultures don't accept gay marriage. Take Iran, gay marriage isnt even an issue because they dont have any gays there. Or Uganda, they dont spend time litigating over gay marriage, who would dare to ask for a marriage licence and risk running afoul of recently proposed legislation to impose the death penalty for being gay.
I think looking to past and even other present cultures is almost as bad looking to the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
I wonder if the percentage of gay persons in the population would be sufficient to care for the unwanted and abandonded children of the breeding population? With this in mind, maybe gay people are part of God's design?
What have you to say about that Maggie?
Yep, this Chairm is the very definition of windbag and crank whose only real contribution is to mangle the english language!
This study SUPPORTS same-sex marriage! It is saying that if it were legal, children would be better off. So yeah... but great job misinterpreting scientific findings. You guys are really starting to get good at that.
Brian's conclusions are wrong--the study shows that the majority of neglected children are abused by their BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.
You all should read the study for yourselves. Here's the link to the US Department of Health study: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/index.html
I am reporting this site to the US Department of Health. You are misrepresenting a scientific study conducted by the federal goverment. That's unethical and immoral.
Raphael, by your math, the majority of straight A students, the majority of Nobel Peace Prize winners, the cream of the crop in society also come from BIOLOGICAL PARENTS. Your claim shows nothing except that the majority of parents are biological.
"I am reporting this site to the US Department of Health. You are misrepresenting a scientific study conducted by the federal goverment."
Good luck with trying to silence those who you disagree with. I think Obama's administration closed the tattle line some time ago, in disgrace. Something about the public's concern with them violating citizen's constitutionally protected freedom of speech....
Ray, your strongly held belief that a social appeal is the same as a legal appeal will be tested during closing arguments, I would expect.
A social appeal is properly considered in the public square, in elections, and in social policy forums such as legislative bodies.
A legal appeal would emphasize the question of law. And the controlling precedent forecloses the district trial judge from attempting to over-rule the US Supreme Court.
Ray said:
"What you are doing is making your own assertions and then agreeing they [...] are right and simply assuming that objecting opinions aren’t rational since you hold your beliefs so strongly. "
I believe that you strongly feel that way. But this is about thinking, reasoning, and arguing the principles of the law.
The SSMers who have commented here have made axiomatic assertions and failed to back those up with anything but mere opinion and speculation.
I think that is not enough. You might feel differently. But what do you think in terms of the legal principles?
Is a district judge empowered to over-rule the US Supreme Court? Please explain your reasoning, rather than your feelings, on that question.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/politics-and-judicial-mischief-making.html
Ray,
What, if anything, is mere assertion in the comment I made @ January 31, @ 2010 at 6:51 pm or @ January 31, 2010 at 7:05 pm?
What, if anything, is dismissive of what other say in the comment I made @ January 31, 2010 at 7:25 pm where I invited agreement on basic principles?
Your comment that followed those comments appears to be a drive-by scorn attack, not an actual response to those comments.
Chairm intones: "A legal appeal would emphasize the question of law. And the controlling precedent forecloses the district trial judge from attempting to over-rule the US Supreme Court."
Well let us check what is at issue. MARRIAGE. Not same-sex marriage. Not inter-racial marriage. Not an alternate form of marriage. But simply - as the US Supreme Court has addressed it - MARRIAGE. Since when has the "fundamental right to marry" been relegated to the soap box?
Plaintiffs are petitioning for "gay marriage". They are petitioning for the "fundamental right to marry".
What is a fundamental right? It's a right that PRECEDES law. It is a right at BIRTH that cannot be denied to ANYONE. That, Chairm, has been the position of the US Supreme Court in every single case contesting the right to marry.
Gays and lesbians meet the single requirement to make the decision to marry. They were BORN! They inherited their right to marry by drawing their first breath in life. THAT Certainly is not a matter for the soap box.
Everyone has a right to marry. There is no issue with that. What some people want is different than marriage. That's why they have to destroy marriage by redefinition it to get what they want. Everyone has the same right to marry that everyone else has. What they don't have is the right to redefine it for everyone else simply to suit some random set of sexual ideas. This isn't about everyone's rights is it? It's about special rights.
TC, if two gay couples marrying in canada (enjoying the same "special" rights as every other canadian) somehow re-defined and destroyed your marriage making it less meaningful... you and your mate have some serious problems. Hint: blaming and pointing fingers at gays and lesbians ain't the problem.
Actually Jak, if you want to claim that there is a right to marry, I would agree with you. If that is the case, everyone has the right to marry. Already given, already granted. Just as I said.
If however you want to say that there is a right to marry indiscriminately, I would disagree with you. Marriage has a purpose higher than just sex, love and personal gratification. I'm sure you agree that not all relationships are created equal, and not all should be called marriage. Polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia, necrophilia, just to name a few.
Anyone who says they need "special" rights to their union may as well be advocating for any other non marriage coupling to be included. I don't know about you, but that's not something I really want to see put forward as some kind of ideal to strive for and I certainly don't want my kids learning about in their public school kindergarten class.
@TC Matthews who suggests: "Anyone who says they need “special” rights to their union may as well be advocating for any other non marriage coupling to be included."
Gays don't seek a special right. Again, the right to marry is not "special" in the sense you imply since gays seek to embrace the **exact** marriage now enjoyed by opposite-sex people. They seek to embrace the **exact** responsibilities that go along with that marriage now shouldered by heterosexual couples. So, special? No. Upholding the fundamental right to marry does not expand "marriage". It simply confirms the same fundamental right all people are entitled to by law.
"Gays don’t seek a special right. "
Then what is the argument about? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everyone is welcome to enter into that exact institution and assume those exact same responsibilities at any time.
The constitution doesn't specify between "whom" a marriage occurs. It simply states what a law CANNOT do. And then it says that no law can prevent a citizens from marrying.
We know this especially from the case of Loving v. Virginia. The court did not "extend" or "expand" the right of Mildred Loving, a black woman, to her white husband and call it the "right to inter-racial marriage". They called the "right to marry" that is due to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, and to whomever they pleased.
The US Supreme Court has NEVER ruled or defined marriage is "between a man and a woman" . It has ALWAYS used neutral language even when discussing the plentiful marriages that exist between a men and women.
So when gays and lesbians petition to enjoy that same right, they are not seeking an expansion to the law. They are asking for the same "right to marry" afforded all other Americans and Mildred Loving did not ask the court to first embrace her race as acceptable, neither do gays ask that their sexual orientation FIRST be embraced. Loving and gays ask ONLY that their fundamental right to marry be embraced.
States laws have a long history of distinguishing between individuals to say who may or may not marry. But the US Supreme Court has NO history in doing that. That is why incarcerated felons have the right to marry WHILE they are in prison and even when they have NO change to ever consummate their marriage (a life sentence without the possibility for parole, for example).
Gays and lesbians seek marriage for the VALUE it has, just like straight people do. And like Mildred Loving, the do not want to be the FIRST in history to have a litmus test applied to them when NO marriage ever has in the history of the Supreme Court. Mildred Loving got to marry the person she loved. That's all gays and lesbians seek as well. That's exactly what heterosexuals do, too.
I always find it strange when SSMers cite Loving v. Virginia as a basis for SSM already being the law since the Loving court based their decision solidly on procreation...
I am sure Judge Walker will decide strictly according to CA constitutional law, decency and justice will prevail for all and this egregious wrong will be rectified.
Ray,
Marriage is a fundamental right because of its deep roots. The SSM idea is deliberately not an outgrowth from those roots. Indeed, the merger of SSM with marriage is predicated on cutting marriage from those deep roots.
Unlike marriage, SSM has no deep roots and is not a foundational right. It is not even foundational to the "gay community" and remains a marginal practice even within the gay identity group.
Ray said:
"They were BORN! They inherited their right to marry by drawing their first breath in life."
Each of us is born equal, of a man and a woman. The social institution of marriage has a core meaning that differentiates it from other arrangements.
That core arises not from gayness or from the Government, as your comment has readily conceded.
It arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed basis of human generativity, and the both-sexed essentials of human community. It is were children -- boys and girls -- are born and nurtured; where their parents are far more than gamete donors; where the well-being of children and their education and moral formation is the responsiblity of the parents not the Government.
At that core is sex integration not sex segregation. Marriage bonds the man and the woman; it takes a woman to make a man a husband; it takes a man to make a woman a wife. The two great halves of humanity are drawn together for mutual support and socialization and, yes, for uniting fatherhood and motherood.
This core is directly attached to the roots: the birthright of the child to be born and raised in the care of his mom and dad -- barring dire circumstances or tragedy. Society owes something to the child. This is procreative justice. And that is not adultcentric but childcentric.
Cut that out of marriage and what is left but a superficial imitation and people mimicking rather than living marriage.
Ray, the US Supreme Court has a precedent specific to SSM and the equal protection and due process claims.
See my previous comment at which I provided a link that explains what you have missed.
February 1, 2010 at 3:03 pm.
* * *
Mr. Loving would have been surprised to hear that he would not be presumed the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. Or that he could have married a man instead.
* * *
Ray, marriage does not organize society by identity groups. Loving repudiated the racialist-like identity politics that your argument keeps waving as a supposedly brand new trump card.
* * *
Ray said:
"Loving and gays ask ONLY that their fundamental right to marry be embraced."
Embraced?
Marriage is a public type of relationship and it is regulated based on its core meaning. Government does not own the social institution. So if you want Government to do the embracing, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Government does not inquire about love or sexual attraction or even group identity. So the government is the wrong tree, too.
The plaintiffs did put their sexual orientation and identity group front and center, first, and then argued from that for a license issued by society and accorded special status.
Not equal status with the rest of nonmarriage, no. But they would attach SSM to marriage while they also sought to gut marriage of its core meaning. That is self-defeating. What is the point in attacking the special reason for the special status of marriage -- if the goal is to enter marriage or to attach your relationship to marriage?
The approach is like the scorpion riding the frog across the river.
Like the arguments of the anti-8 litigators, and like the testimony of the plaintiffs, your comments have emphasized gayness as the first thing to consider.
There has been an emotional appeal to use the gayness emphasized to carve out a new suspect classification. And on that -- which would come first -- establish a constitutional right to SSM. And on that - establish a merger of SSM with marriage.
* * *
The US Constitution does not define marriage. And the marriage amendment in California does not include a "heterosexual" criterion for eligiblity nor a "homosexual" criterion for ineligiblity.
So if you'd rely on what is and is not in these constitutions, you can stop reading into these texts what is simply not there.
But I think readers can expect you to return to gay-this-and-gay-that as quickly and emphatically as you have throughout the discussion.
There is one human race, Ray, and its nature happens to be two-sexed not one-sexed and not sex neutral. The US Supreme Court's precedents and our constitutional jurisprudence have acknowledged as much.
SSM = Specious Substition of Marriage.
To chairm and TC:
Why are you doing this?
Heterosexuals, NOT HOMOSEXUALS, are divorcing en masse. Are you blaming divorce rates on us homos? Or are you saying that divorce rates will rise if we are able to get married? Do you believe that ANYTHING at all will "happen" to hetero marriages is homos get married? The only way the meaning of someone's marriage is diminished IS IF THEY PURPOSEFULLY DIMINISH IT THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for thinking homosexual America has such a mindbending power hellbent on destruction of all things str8, but I hate to burst your bubble, we just don't.
SCIENTIFIC DATA already states that homosexuals are just as good at parenting as heteros. The APA supports homo marriage, PERIOD!
Are you expecting people to rely on ONLY YOUR WORD that homosexuals inherently cannot be as good a parent as a hetero? Seriously!
Homosexual America IS the scientific study. WE'VE LIVED IT DEALING WITH A-HOLES LIKE YOU TWO READY TO POUNCE ON US AT EVERY TURN.
I WOULD AGAIN BET MONEY YOU TWO DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO WALK INTO A GAY BAR ON A SATURDAY NIGHT AND SPOUT YOUR VILE HATE SPEECH YOU SO VIVIDLY DEPEND ON IN THE SAFE ANONIMITY OF THE INTERNET!!!!!
WE LIVE IT EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES, YOU BUFFOONS!!!!!!!!!!!
TC:
YOUR SCHTICK ABOUT HOMOS HAVING THE SAME RIGHT TO A STR8 MARRIAGE IS ANOTHER SIGN OF YOUR HETERO-ASSUMPTIVE GENDER ROLE BOX.
HERE'S SOME FOOD FOR THOUGH:
A SPECIAL RIGHT IS ONE THAT ANOTHER GROUP IS RESTRICTED FROM..................................................................................................................AND IT SEEMS YOU HAVE A SPECIAL RIGHT THAT YOU VELIEVE HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD NOT HAVE!!!! WHICH MEANS YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL AND HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN'T!!!!!!!!!
Talk yourself into a circle on that one, BIGOT!!!!!!!
TC and chairm:
You two are just like Whitey on the Plantation and in the 50s and 60s. You're pro discrimination against homosexuals, pro-segregration against homosexuals, you say we're not as good as you----ALL WITH/FOR NO GOOD REASON BUT TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE WORLD YOU'VE CREATED IN YOUR OWN MIND VS THE REAL ONE YOUR MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ABILITIES ARE IN CONSTANT CONFLICT WITH!!!
And yes, we know you two are ging to ponder whether or not my skin is darker than yours more than anything else. "What would a white person mean by that? I don't get it."
We know what's important above all alse to people like you. KEEPING THINGS AND PEOPLE DIFFERENT FROM YOU SEPERATED IN WAYS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL YOU'RE ON TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Times are a chaingin, you two, and if you don't change with them your perspective will be looked down upon just like those racists and segregationists from the 50s and 60s. And that is a 100% guarantee!!!!
chairm and tc:
That's right. WE'RE ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some of us aren't afarid to let you see it in person either. You guys are such cowards. I'd love to be alone with you two for ONE MINUTE.
For all the years of hell people like you have created in the lives of homosexuals, I'd pay to watch you reach a truely empathetic epiphany regarding homosexuals. You want to know what I'd do when you finally see what you guys have been promoting adn doing to us? I'd stand there and watch. Then I'd walk away.
Nice. Love the tolerance there David. Just put the keyboard down ok?
A coward turns and runs away from the actual disagreement, David, and bangs his drum as he scurries away.
Threats likek yours are on the record here. As is your lack of an actual argument.
Mildred Loving, of Loving vs. Virginia, wrote not long before her death:
" I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
Fortunately Emma, what Mildred Loving thought personally has no bearing on what the court thought in deciding her case. Mildred is no doubt only one of the many who have been taken in by the emotionally strong, factually weak rhetoric of gay activists. She is welcome to her opinion, just as you are.
The cold hard fact is that the Loving case was not decided by a choice of whom to love.
Great Comment Emma!!! She'd probobly shed a tear reading what the NOMers write.
Great comment Emma...Mildred would probobly shed a tear reading what these NOMers write. And what you Charm and little TC and the other NOMers think have no bearing as well and are simply your opinion which you have a right to...that does not mean you NOMers have a right to strip a given excercised RIGHT to marriage from GAY CALIFORNIANS! Based on your opinions which are WEAK at best.!
I feel sorry for your children and chidrens children when they have to pretend that, their father or grandfather or Mother/Grandmother in Marie's case, did either not exist or lie about their beleifs that they held back in 2010, out of complete shame on how discriminatory they were...it is truly sad...now that is definately comething that tears at the fabrick of a family. It's really too bad this is the legacy you will leave them...simply sad. Hopefully you are using fake names and can pretend you never thought this way...but God will know....and he too will feel shame for you....he'll probably feel like he let you down by not proviiding you all the rational tools that he provided others...He'll probably forgive you.
tc and chairm:
what alternate logic are you two following? loving vs virginia was of course decided by who Mildred loved . wake up you guys, that was the only reason her case went to trial.
and AGAIN, where is the data fron your, or any independent, scientific study that shows homos can't parent as well, the kids raised by homos just can 't be normal-whatever that is, etc.
it's as if you two are given facts and information and regardless of the info's and fact's content re: homosexuals and marriage and parenting, you guys will totally bypass reason and logic and come up with a bed effect or an unnatural and destruction bent motivation to ascribe to homosexuals. you two make no sense.
have you guys actually read the posts by myself and others who are pro ssm? seriously, i'm not joking. i mean actually read and comprehended the words and information in our posts? do you think myself and people like Regan DuCasse have no clue about what we speak?
we've been dealing with people like you all our lives and are more than familiar with your schtick. and we're ready to fight for our equal right regardless of you personally sought and though ability to trunp our science and logic with only your betteroseualness.
BRING IT ON H8ERS!!!!!!!!!!
Here are a few more pro-SSM quotes to chew on:
* "The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
* "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan
* "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
* "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin
* "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
* "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
* "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
* "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
* "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).
* "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).
* [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
* "The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." --Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
Seems sensible enough to me.
I guess that is the difference between you and me bystander, and exactly the reason why marriage and family needs the utmost care and attention, to defend from those whose express desire is to see it destroyed.
so, tc, are you inferring /asssumming yourself or just trying to convince others to assume/infer that the above qoutings are what every lesbian or woman or black lesbian or generally all homosexuals that want to get married and/or adopt etc. thinks and feels?
are you a str8 caucasian female/male, TC? if so the burden of proof is on you. and all you're doing is trying to get eeryone to believe that homosexuals aren't capable of familial success. I'd love to hear a psychologist/psychiatrist's response to your presumptions. in front of thousands.
"I feel sorry for your children...and chidrens children..."
Richard, I love it when people try to write history before its been lived. It's especially ironic when these same people try to twist it into a club to beat on those with whom they disagree. I heard this same bit just a little while ago in the healthcare debate. It's just another bit of tired out rhetoric. You don't have to get out your crystal ball to find out what people think about SSM. You can simply look to California, Maine, New York, and most recently New Jersey to find out.
"we’re ready to fight for our equal right regardless of you personally sought and though ability to trunp our science and logic with only your betteroseualness. BRING IT ON H8ERS!!!!!!!!!!"
David, don't you see the irony?
tc,
you've already written the future history of gay marriage. who do you think you are to say something like that to someone when you just did the same thing you accuse another person of.
do you even see what you're doing?
"“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them”"
You know, if this weren't so true it would be ridiculous.
lmarie, you're an idiot. the irony is you can't see it.
Actually David, you've done a pretty good job of describing yourself. Seriously? This is the face of the activist gay movement. You can't refute, so you make threats and call names. Is it so hard to come to the table with ideas instead of bawdy intimidations?
We know that married intact natural families are the gold standard. This fact has scientific consensus. Same-sex parenting lacks a scientific consensus because there simply are not enough good studies on which to base a conclusion.
You are the one with the burden of proof.
Dont worry David, the courts will resolve this situation.
What's nice is that same sex marriage will eventually happen regardless of the bigotry and twisted lies spewed on these blogs. I'm just waiting on all of these old, mean, insecure, out-of-date traditionalists to die off one by one so the younger more enlightened generation could take their place to pass it. 52% to 48% on a scale that has been increasingly tilted for gay marriage? How long do you think it'll take to gain those last few percentage points as the country becomes less and less religious?
Yes, I am a lesbian after your children. I find this drowning movement of yours laughable.
Sorry young teen, but the goal of the homosexual agenda is well known.
"young teen lesbian", why are you writing this? You have same sex attractions so therefore you allign yourself with a political cause that will do nothing for you? A few years ago, there were a lot of "young communists" and yet the world did not inevitably all become communist, did it?
People change their minds and traditional marriage is not a "drowning movement". It is what the world has done for years and years. It is the backbone of a stable society.
In the early 1970s, during the U.S. civil rights movement, which sought for much-needed racial and gender equality, almost no one considered people with homosexual attraction as a distinctive demographic group. The main legal goal of homosexual activists then was to eliminate criminal penalties against homosexual acts, as a first step toward their goal of greater public acceptance.
In the early 1970's, the public, and most lawyers, doctors, and therapists saw homosexuality, not as normal adult behavior, but as a psychological disorder.
So what has happened to cause the legal and cultural spasms we face today? Simply put, we have witnessed an aggressive political movement that has outstripped any substantive change in the medical or legal evidence. In 1973, in response to increasing political harassment by homosexual activists, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations removed homosexuality from their official list of disorders. This action was taken by simply putting the issue to an open vote in their professional convention meetings. The change was passed, not because of any change in actual medical findings, but as a political statement. A friend of UFI, psychologist Dean Byrd has written, "This was the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence."
The activists have used similar methods in the years since then, trying to prove that they are a legitimate demographic group with fixed and immutable, or unchangeable, characteristics. They must convince us of this way in order to justify their demand for the same legal protections now given to race and gender. It is a crucial point in understanding both the agenda and the tactics of intimidation used by these activists.
We have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of the homosexual lifestyle to accept as normal that which is not normal. Disagree with them and be labeled as narrow-minded, bigoted, and unreasonable. These advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but even quicker to attack those with a different view. Their hope is to intimidate opposition and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like 'homophobic.' This is more than a social issue. It may ultimately be a test of basic religious or other freedoms.
Richard, the record will show that I stood for the social institution of marriage and against the assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics.
I stood against the racialist kind of identity politics and am proud of having done so for about two decades before the Loving decision.
That hasn't changed. Your version of identity politics is proving itself little better than what I fought against back then.
David,
What does the B mean in "H8BERS"?
Also, before you comment again, please cut the yelling with all caps.
Thanks.
Thanks Samantha. Well said.
Another point - ssm does affect me . I will have to teach it's correctness in school , even though it is contrary to my personal social beliefs. In places of worship, eventaully, it will become illegal to read the and discuss the Bible and its lessons , because it will be a hate crime. I foresee that , very quickly, another's "rights" will deny mine.