Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Interesting post, Jack. I don’t know about liberals, but Democrats are not for gay “marriage” necessarily. We mostly just think gay couples should have the same civil rights as hetero couples. Call the spiritual union whatever you want - like you, I don’t even want to go there - but the legal union should be the same.

I find this post interesting as well. For me the issue is not whether gays should get married or not but that they should have equal benefit under the laws of the land: especially a land that prides itself of the values of equality and justice for all.

It is my position that government should get out of the “marriage” business and leave that to the churches (and they can decide who to marry and how many etcetera).

The concern of government should be the welfare of the people, and this means providing the same benefits to similar households regardless of the sexual or other makeup inside.

Legally I see this as a partnership issue, where any number of people regardless of personal relationship can form a {partnership for the purpose of running a household}. This can be siblings, unrelated “spinsters” (male or female) or groups of single parents — all valid organizations that would benefit from the same provisions that legal marriage currently confers on one specific subgroup of the “hosuehold” pantheon.

I also see the current push to define marriage in a very narrow and discriminatory manner as one that will lead to this happening, as either these marriage “ammendments” will fail in the supreme court or it will rule that no law can be based on such a narrow and ultimately religious definition. That would be the result of political irony: the opposite of what you want happening. (think prohibition for another example).

Enjoy.
Paul
Liberal and proud of it.
(After all Liberals brought you this country.)

It is my position that government should get out of the “marriage” business and leave that to the churches (and they can decide who to marry and how many etcetera).

I’m with you on that one, Paul. If marriage is a sacred institution, it’s not the province of the government. Leave it to the churches.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that same-sex civil unions should be allowed, and accorded the same status as different-sex unions.

There was a great letter in my local paper from a guy who could not be at the deathbed of his partner of 18 years - according to the hospital rules, that priviledge is only accorded to a relative or a spouse. That’s just not right.

It’s great to see a conservative holding a reasonable opinion this issue. A few questions though.

So why are liberals in favor of all this? Many liberals oppose conservative policies to promote marriage and support alternative families [where] marriage is often not part of the mix.

What “alternative families” do you mean? Are you insinuating “free-love” or “open marriage?” Maybe serial monogamy for those who can afford it? I really have no idea what you mean by this but I accept that I might be thinking in the wrong direction.

And how have liberals opposed “conservative policies to promote marriage?”

paul & William,

It is my position that government should get out of the “marriage” business and leave that to the churches (and they can decide who to marry and how many etcetera).

Marriage is a civil institution. Religion may claim to hold the keys to it but they don’t.

Wow… I think this is the first time I can honestly say I agree completely with a post in the conservative column, without reservation. I also agree with most of the comments that have been made so far, though I think it important to make sure that if government gets out of the marriage business both same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are called the same thing under the law, even if religions choose to name them different things or not recognize one form of them at all.

Not every alternative family is bound that way by sex. I and my two children live in the same home with a friend of mine and her child.

We’re both heterosexual divorcees who’d rather live together in a nice part of town than alone in a crime-infested one. We alternate who makes dinner and there are two of us to battle household chores and the bills. We sit each others children and alternate who has to stay home when all three of them are sick. We function as any ‘normal’ (And I use that term very loosely.) family, without sex.

All of my biological family lives a minimum of two hundred miles away but I can’t even put my roomate as my next of kin to make emergency medical desicions for me. So, instead of a good friend of mine who knows what my preferences are making those desicions, a stranger employed by the State would, simply because we’re both female.

Does that make sense to you? ‘Cause it doesn’t make any sense to me…

This blog is way too simplified…The writer makes the classic mistake of Post Hoc reasoning. (Defined on http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/posthoc.html ). He is assuming that because married people tend to fit certain demographics, being married is what caused those demographics to be true.
A couple of sample points that are disagreed on…
1) Just because single people voted for Bush in lower percentages does not mean that someone would be more likely to vote for Bush if they got married.
2) Same situation with the stability of married people. Just because married people are more stable does not mean that being married MADE them more stable. In fact, just the opposite is true, people are able to easier find a mate, because they are stable.
3) Last point is that the blogger is correct that conservatives claim to like “family values” and monogamy is a typical “family value” issue. However, that does not mean that if gay people have the right to be married, gay monogomy will go up. In fact, there are surveys done in the countries where gay marriage is allowed, and the median # of sexual partners a gay married person has is 6.
After saying all this, I believe that gay people should get at least some of the benefits that straight people have for marriage (next of kin, etc), however, it will be difficult to give it without increasing the potential for fraudulent marriages. I also think that the government shouldn’t bastardize and manipulate a concept which is religious in nature. That is why I am for civil unions which will give gay people rights they should have, but without calling it marriage.

Rudy,

I also think that the government shouldn’t bastardize and manipulate a concept which is religious in nature.

Government isn’t doing anything to the concept of marriage. It’s not doing anything but recognizing the reality that restricting a subset of the American populace from an existing civil institution for no other reason but sexual orientation is unconstitutional, as it should be. Meanwhile, the moderate response from the right is to create a legal ghetto for gay couples where they should just be happy with what they’ve got.

[…] it will be difficult to give [at least some of the benefits that straight people have for marriage] without increasing the potential for fraudulent marriages.

Other than simple numbers, i.e. more people equals more fraud, on what basis do you make this claim? And what does the claim have to do with homosexuals?

The gay marriage issue is a red herring that distracts from the real problems with marriage: adultery and divorce. If anyone were seriously trying to “save the sacred tradition of marriage,” they would be seeking constitutional bans on these, not gays. Face it, America is not serious about personal responsibility - it’s all rhetoric. Banning gay marriage is just a despicable side show.

It is always hard to “experiment” with society and correlation does not prove causality. It is possible - maybe likely - that stable and successful people are more likely to get married in the first place, so marriage looks like it makes people more stable and successful. Usually, in such things, the causalities interact. We don’t have to choose between them. A similar situation exists in education. Smarter kids are more likely to go to good universities. But the good university education makes them more successful. We can never be sure what percentage of success if due to intelligence and what is due to learning. The two probably cannot be usefully separated.

With marriage, we do have a sort of experiment. If we look at what happens to families when two people divorce, all the social statistics drop with that. Poverty increases remarkably, especially for women. Okay, divorce might also be self-selected. A similar, although less marked thing happens when a partner dies.

Marriage does affect behavior in positive ways. We can argue about the exact amounts, but not the direction.

As to your Euro statistics that gay married people have six partners, I have no reason to question that. The questions I would have is over what periods and how many do the non-married ones have? Monogamy is a valid goal. It would virtually eliminate the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Of course, that is unattainable, but just because we can’t achieve perfection doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to achieve something.

I agree that the government needs to stay out of ‘marriage’.
The only thing that the government really needs to do is make sure that people who love each other can visit in the hospital, buy insurance for each other, be given the right to make medical decisions for whoever wants you to do it for them or for you.
All these things an be accomplished by hospitals, insurance companies, and legal papers.
Insurance companies could easily let people insure each other if they wanted to. If not related by blood - so what - it’s the same damn premium. Add a surcharge.
It’s just too bad that some of our companies have to be forced by government. I would think they would be happy to have another customer.
This way - if some guy - wants to have 5 ‘wives’ and 38 children - and can afford it - he can get them all on his insurance.
Same household should be enough to accomplish all these things. Including tax returns.
All this sounds too easy to me - just let people decide who they want to take care of and get rid of the red tape.

Exactly!

Marriage, legally speaking, is really just property law. Who gets what, what belongs to whom and so on. Who says that you have to be the same gender to split the cost of the rent, a couch, or insurance?

Marriage, legally speaking, is really just property law.

So that’s what conservatives are fighting to preserve, property law? Gays must be restricted from marriage to preserve the sanctity of property law? That’s why we need an amendment to the constitution?

Joseph, a couple replies to your reply…

The potential for fraud increases because of situations like the following (untrue) hypothetical situaton. Also, this is not a big part of my comments but I wanted to explain it…

Imagine you live in Chicago with another guy as friends to split costs of rent, etc. He gets laid off, and has a disease that requires medical costs (diabetes, MS, etc). Rather than have him get screwed and go into debt to pay these costs, your buddy and you “get married” so that he can be put on your insurance. I imagine this would happen frequently if gay marriage is allowed. Granted, this can also be done with people of the opposite sex, but it is more difficult for opposite sex people to defraud the system that way because people of opposite sexes are typically not platonic roommates. (I have no stats on this, but am pretty positive it is true).

As for Adultery laws, adultery has been illegal in many states for decades. However, due to the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence V. Texas, (which stated that sodomy is a constitutional right), the constitutionality of morality laws that do not have a valid state interest (like adultery, adult incest, etc…) is in doubt.

I do think Americans are disappointed in the moral decay of American society. I know I am.

Rose/Joseph, marriage is not just about property rights. It is also about child custody rights, taxes, next of kin decisions in deathbed situtations, discrimination, and health insurance. Yes, property law is also an important piece of the gay marriage debate. However, that doesn’t mean that this issue is not “important” enough for an amendment. Considering Alcohol has gotten two amendments (one to prohibit, one to repeal), Amendments can be made for stupid reasons. Also, the only reason some people want to make the Amendment, is because they don’t feel that 5 Supreme court justices should have the right to decide this issue for the entire country. Frankly, if that is decided by the Supreme Court, it will just turn into another Roe V. Wade decision that will seperate this country even further.

The potential for fraud increases because of situations like the following (untrue) hypothetical situaton. Also, this is not a big part of my comments but I wanted to explain it…

This doesn’t sound like a real point. There is fraud in any system. Unless you think gays are somehow more prone to instigate fraud, then this is no justification for disallowing gays to marry.

As for Adultery laws, adultery has been illegal in many states for decades. However, due to the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence V. Texas, (which stated that sodomy is a constitutional right), the constitutionality of morality laws that do not have a valid state interest (like adultery, adult incest, etc…) is in doubt.

Sounds like you need a constitutional amendment. ;) Seriously, though. I’m trying to understand. I was addressing real issues about marriage, such as adultery and divorce, and wondering why these proponents of a gay marriage ban don’t work on eliminating these real issues rather than doggedly attacking the rights of gays. I understand the current legal climate regarding these issues and they are no more inoculated from an assault from the right than gays are.

Rose/Joseph, marriage is not just about property rights.

Yes, I was kidding.

Considering Alcohol has gotten two amendments (one to prohibit, one to repeal), Amendments can be made for stupid reasons.

A previous mistake does not a justification make. It’s hard to take any argument like this seriously. Since we screwed up the constitution with Prohibition, we might as well throw whatever we want in there? That doesn’t sound reasonable.

Also, the only reason some people want to make the Amendment, is because they don’t feel that 5 Supreme court justices should have the right to decide this issue for the entire country.

It might be because of a fundamental lack of understanding as to how our system of government works. I hear this inane “activist judges” phrase only in instances where the accusing party doesn’t favor the judge’s ruling. A case works its way through the system, when it gets to the higher courts and there is a question to the constitutionality of the particulars of the case, judges are required to rule on this matter. It’s their job. They are not being an activist when making such a ruling. They are making their ruling based on their understanding of the law, free from the transient influences of a capricious public.

Forget about trying to call it gay marriage, what it would be is same sex marriage. Nobody would have to prove they were really gay.
That is where the fraud would come into play.

2 very straight friends, one has no Ins. and needs a million dollar operation, a quickie vegas marriage with a ironclad pre-nup, put them on your companys Ins. as a spouse.

I’m sure it happens somewhat now, but all the laws and benifits for marriage were written before anyone thought about same sex marriage.

Without passing any judgement, people should look a little at what it will cost everyone in taxes, SS, and Ins. before they cheer to loudly for this change.

If the law was changed, there would be no reason that a mother couldn’t marry a daughter, a father a son, 2 brothers, ect. They couldn’t produce children and any moral grounds would go out the window with the same sex marriage law.

I’m not gay-bashing, I’m just saying stop and think about the slippery slope and the costs.

Actually, I think the point is that it would be called, “marriage.” The right seems to think it okay to shuffle all the gays into a legal ghetto called, “civil unions” and say, “It’s almost exactly like marriage, only it’s not. Happy now?”

If the law was changed, there would be no reason that a mother couldn’t marry a daughter, a father a son, 2 brothers, ect. They couldn’t produce children and any moral grounds would go out the window with the same sex marriage law.

A slippery slope fallacy is still a fallacy.

Joseph,

I passed no judgement and put nobody in a “ghetto”, I just pointed out the fact that there are unforseen costs involved.

I didn’t say you put anyone in a ghetto. I’m saying those on the right who are moderate enough seem to think it’s okay to offer gays civil unions as some consolation prize for wanting to get married. If marriage is the town and gays want to live there, and all the heteros say, no, and instead shuffle them all off to the civil union blockhouse, that’s putting them in a ghetto.

Your slippery slope fallacy was a separate point and post. Your point that moms could marry daughters is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t address the issue at hand. You are instead creating a hypothetical and saying since the hypothetical is so bad, gay marriage must therefore be banned.

Marriage has rights and obligations. In the hypothetical case of friends marrying only to get insurance, it wouldn’t be that easy to defraud the system. Spouses have legal obligations for each other’s debts. Prenuptial agreement can alter the relationship between spouses, but cannot protect them from third parties. So, our sick partner incurs debts and then dies. He leaves his friend with potential liabilities.

If this kind of fraud were so easy, what a sweet deal this would be. Unscrupulous straight couples would be working this over already. For example, partners establish a prenuptial agreement saying their assets are separate. One partner runs up all the family debts and then defaults. How safe is the other partner from creditors?

The gay and straight situations both work the same way. It is not a good reason to oppose same sex marriage.

Jack,

Unless a spouse has a joint account, or cosigns for a debt, most states won’t allow the debtors to collect from the innocent spouse.

Even the IRS has a form called “innocent spouse”to protect the other partner for debts they didn’t sign up for.

Just FYI, I wasn’t saying no to same sex marriage, my total point is there are costs involved that many havn’t thought about.

I haven’t read this whole string, but let me add this.

Marriage is designed as an institution for the protection of children, and the protection of a non-working spouse, usually the mother. It places obligations on spouses to each other and the children, and provides benefits to these families because they are seen as best for raising children. As a society, we have seen this as important.

The establishment of “gay marriage”, or equal benefits for gay couples, could thus be seen as the full endorsement of parenting by gay couples - 100% equal to hetero married couples.

I am not prepared to say that encouraging a child to be raised in a house without a father or mother is a good thing for society. Should adoption rights for gay couples be on 100% equal footing with straight couples? This argument needs to focus on the kids, not the parents, because that is what marriage is all about. If children were born as fully functioning, self-sufficient adults, marriage would have no social purpose (religion aside).

On a side note, I have also never heard the answer to the following question from those in favor of gay marriage: Should we drop the one man/one woman requirement of marriage, what remains to prevent polygamy?

I am not prepared to say that encouraging a child to be raised in a house without a father or mother is a good thing for society. Should adoption rights for gay couples be on 100% equal footing with straight couples? This argument needs to focus on the kids, not the parents, because that is what marriage is all about. If children were born as fully functioning, self-sufficient adults, marriage would have no social purpose (religion aside).

I heard junk just like this in the Senate Hearings. “We don’t know the effects of raising children in same-sex couples’ households. We won’t know for generations what the effects will be. Therefore we must ban gay marriage now.” Sorry, it’s faulty reasoning. You don’t ban something because some hypothetical corollary might not be to your liking if things turn out as bad as you speculate they will. They even tried to say, “We don’t know the effects of children raised without a mother or a father.” As if single-parent families don’t exist.

Mr. Briggs,

I would say it is up to the gay marriage people to prove their case, not vice-versa. The current status of marriage is one man/one woman - the gay lobby is trying to change a definition that is thousands of years old.

As far as I know there is not one elected body in the country, except for maybe the San Fran city council, that has voted to create a same-sex marriage. It is being imposed by the courts, and is being resisted, not “banned”.

As for single parent households, common sense indicates that it can’t be good for children, and as such it should not be encouraged (via the tax code, welfare system, etc.). How does that destroy my argument?

Beagle

If the spouses conspire to defraud, there is not an innocent spouse.

Jack my friend,

In what I stated there would be no real fraud, just working the system. I stand corrected for that.
Do you agree there will be unforseen costs ?

It is being imposed by the courts, and is being resisted, not “banned”.

Sorry, no. First, courts didn’t just wake up one morning and say, “Without any case before me, I shall impose my will upon the people.” That’s not what happened. There was a case of discrimination brought before the courts, the courts ruled in favor of equal protection. That’s how the system works. Just because the anti-gay lobby doesn’t like it doesn’t make the ruling judges activist judges, it doesn’t mean they are succumbing to some homosexual agenda, and it doesn’t mean they are imposing their will upon the people.

Second, did you watch the last election? Eleven states put amendments up to ban gay marriage and all eleven were affirmed. Two of those states added in the bonus ban of no civil unions either.

As for single parent households, common sense indicates that it can’t be good for children, and as such it should not be encouraged (via the tax code, welfare system, etc.). How does that destroy my argument?

Where’s your proof? Common sense? That’s not proof. How does this destroy your argument? To assert that we do not know the effects of single-parent rearing on children is a false premise. Forwarding a false premise to strengthen your argument betrays a weak position. As evidence you expand upon this assertion with speculation rather than facts. “I think raising children with one parent is bad for kids.” This has no bearing on the facts of the issue. As a very simple example: I am the product of a single-parent upbringing. My father died when I was 4 and my mother did a great job of raising me the rest of the way. She never remarried and I never felt I was missing anything in my life. Neither have my two brothers. It may be anecdotal, but my experience is far from extraordinary.

I’m sure you or I could easily find examples of deliterious single-parenting but the point is that your self-righteous generalizations about what is and is not good for the people should never have any bearing on public policy. Sweeping generalizations sweep innocents under the rug. When you are dealing with a system like America, the number of innocents you sweep away can reach the millions. I would imagine any conservative that parks “compassionate” in front that label should understand this.

Forwarding a false premise to strengthen your argument betrays a weak position. As evidence you expand upon this assertion with speculation rather than facts.

And to be clear, I realize that I am combining the arguments of the Senate Hearing (that we don’t know the effects of single-parenting) with you, Brett.

Census Bureau Reports

About a third (32 percent) of custodial parents who did not receive the
child support payments awarded them in 1995 were poor, according to a
report released today that was co-sponsored by the Commerce Department’s
Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Custodial parents receiving at least some of the child support they
were owed had a poverty rate of 22 percent,” said Census Bureau analyst
Lydia Scoon-Rogers. “In general, 30 percent of custodial parents were poor
in 1995, compared with 16 percent of all parents with children.”

The data in this report were collected in the April 1994 and April 1996
supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS) before passage of the
1996 Welfare Reform Act. In addition, changes to the April 1994 and April
1996 survey questionnaires mean that many of these data are not comparable
with data from the April 1992 CPS and earlier supplements.

Report before Congress.

By far, the adolescents who had the greatest number of problems— not just with antisocial behavior, but also in school, in personality development, and in general mental health—came from families in which parents were hostile, aloof, or uninvolved. These predictors of adolescent dysfunction were identical across ethnic, socioeconomic, and household groups, in that children from homes characterized by negative parenting were at risk for problems regardless of their ethnicity or income and regardless of whether their parents were married, divorced, single, or remarried. In other words, the quality of the parent-child relationship matters much more than the social demographics of the household.

There is a lot of research out there on this issue, tons, in fact.

Joseph, let me boil down your argument and see if I got it right:

Homosexual parents are 100% equal to heterosexual parents and therefore extending the definition of marriage to include gay couples does not hurt children and should be embraced by American government and society.

Do I have that right?

What about a family with 1 man and 2 or 3 or 4 women?

And why was it again that the burden of proof is on those supporting status quo, and not those seeking to change the meaning of marriage that has stood since the beginning of man?

What about a family with 1 man and 2 or 3 or 4 women?

Slippery slope fallacy. Prove to me that allowing gays to marry will somehow lead to polygamy.

[…] the meaning of marriage that has stood since the beginning of man

You do realize that polygamy is also a significant part of the history and tradition of marriage, right? Arranged marriages, foot binding, female circumcision, pedophilia, it goes on and on. Do you want the whole tradition of marriage or just those parts that support hetero bigotry?

Homosexual parents are 100% equal to heterosexual parents and therefore extending the definition of marriage to include gay couples does not hurt children and should be embraced by American government and society.

Yes, that’s right. Except maybe that “and society” bit. Society is free to hold its own opinions. The law must protect all.

why was it again that the burden of proof is on those supporting status quo […]

The conservative anti-gay movement wants to change American rule of law by working discrimination of a minority group into the constitution. Given that the anti-gay argument is based on faith and tradition (neither being arguments of fact) as it applies to a civil institution (not a religious one despite religions’ claims of owership) then it would seem that the burden of proof is on those who wish to attack equal protection and disgrace our constitution.

Since there is great confusion between the legally sanctioned institution of marriage and the religiously sanctioned institution, it is helpful to look at this definition of marriage. Given the offense some take at broadening the legal bounds of marriage, we might be better off devising a language that separates the two. For example, we might call one “marriage,” the generic term, and the other “holy matrimony” or some such designation to connote its religious foundation. Perhaps we can then get past this semantic obstacle, allow those with religious definitions to not sanction certain marriages, and let marriage do its socially useful work.

Joseph,

I wrote:
“What about a family with 1 man and 2 or 3 or 4 women?”

You replied:
“Slippery slope fallacy. Prove to me that allowing gays to marry will somehow lead to polygamy.”

If a court rules it is discriminatory to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, how can it follow any similar logic and deny marriage to polygamists? If it does try, it will just be substituting one “discriminating” definition (one man/one woman) for another (any two people). This is hardly a “slippery slope” argument - it is a short extension of the logic that is being used by the gay marriage lobby. You tell me how your “equal protection” argument can possibly be stopped on a line between gay marriage and polygamy?

And as to the burden of proof rebuttal, you will have to do better than that. Marriage and its benefits are available to all people, regardless or race, color or creed - all you have to do is find 1 partner of the opposite sex. You can’t marry your dog either. It looks like gays are seeking the perks of marriage (tax breaks, soc security benefits, inheritance rights, spousal insurance coverage) and therefore should have to prove that the US gov’t will get a return on the investement (a bunch of productive future taxpayers).

And conservatives are using the levers available in the Constitution to stop laws from being imposed by judges - hardly an insult to the American rule of law. And finally, there are many contending, as an argument of fact, that gay marriage is bad for children - and there are those on the other side like you contending that fact is inaccurate.

Homosexual Marriage Not in Arizona’s Best Interests

J. Anthony Matel’s arguments for homosexual marriage are not only wrong, but they are dangerous — for several reasons.

Social science research has already given us an accurate view of homosexual relationships and the instability of those involved, including children.

We know that homosexual relationships last, on average, for approximately 18 months. On average, these “committed” homosexual “partners” engage in sexual relations with eight individuals per year. Monogamy is virtually unheard of among same-sex partners, and “infidelity” is considered the norm. What about that couple down the street which has been together for 23 years, you ask? Well, they helped take the average homosexual relationship up to 18 months.

We also know that the children of same-sex couples do poorly in school compared to the children of traditional families. These children are more likely to get into trouble, use drugs and alcohol and experience more problems with depression and sexual identity.

Child psychologists tell us that around the age of nine, boys need to start lessening the bond with the mother and strengthening the bond with the father. When social engineering tinkers with that, the natural order is disrupted — often with harmful effects with lasting repercussions for the walking wounded. This also applies to children of divorce, who don’t fare as well in single-parent homes either.

An alarming statistic borne out by social science research is that in the United States, in the year 2001, more than 16,000 women were the victims of violence at the hands of their lesbian partners. In the same year, more than 13,000 homosexual men in the U.S. were the victims of violence at the hands of their homosexual partners. This represented 94.8 percent of all violent crimes committed against homosexuals in the U.S. for that year. That’s correct: heterosexuals account for just 5.2 percent of violent crimes against homosexuals. If any group is guilty of homophobia, it’s homosexuals themselves.

All these negative statistics point to one bottom line that cannot be ignored: it is not in the interests of neighborhoods, communities, governments, societies, individuals — adults and children — or employers to encourage same-sex marriage. The social costs far outweigh any gains which can be accrued.

People argue that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender. This is a hollow argument. We don’t marry everyone or everything we love. If same-sex marriage is force-fed to the American public — as is the case in Canada, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian nations — there will be no reason to regulate this institution any longer. Legalized same-sex marriage laws decrease the number of marriages rather than increasing them. And what would then stop people in this litigious-obsessed time and age from seeking to marry animals, inanimate objects, or themselves (which has actually happened already in Europe)?

Homosexuals argue that their cause is directly related to the civil rights movement — a totally hollow and unsubstantiated plea. A relative of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, J.R. Ellis, said that the homosexual movement has no substantive argument to make the tie to civil rights. An activity that one percent of the American population choose on their own to engage in — at great health risks to themselves — is not grounds for employment benefits or state-approved marriage rights. The myth of a homosexual gene is just that: a myth, totally without merit in the scientific community.

History is littered with the debris of failed social experiments, such as the Democrats’ war on poverty, Planned Parenthood’s farcical sex education and others. There are no good arguments for adding same-sex marriage in Arizona, or any other state, to that list.

Take away the nonprofit organizations with high-powered development and public relations functions, websites and the intimidation of opponents by the homosexual activist organizations, and all you have left is the plain truth that marriage is best served by the union of one man and one woman. The homosexual activist movement is incapable of countering that truth without resorting to name-calling, intimidation and coercion and in some cases, violence, threats and vandalism.

Bodies of government will do well to legislate in ways that encourage intact, traditional families headed by a man and a woman. Arizona’s judicial system was wise last year to refuse to tamper with the state’s marriage laws. Communities and society will benefit from such wise lawmaking and disciplined jurisprudence.

Meanwhile, numerous of those “wonderful, loving relationships” joined together last year during homosexual marriages in Massachusetts and San Francisco are already ending in divorce.

A new report from CDC has just indicated an 11-percent increase in AIDS among homosexual men. This statistic does not bode well for home-making or child-raising. The average life expectancy of a male homosexual with AIDS is just 41.

As my final argument against homosexual marriage, consider this: the rate of pedophilia among homosexual parents is 46 times that of pedophilia among heterosexual parents.

For additional social science research statistics pertaining to this topic, please see: http://www.unitedfamilies.org/documents/UFIfamilyIGSOfullpage_000.pdf