Gay Marriage, the Rights of Children, and Religious Liberty

I’ve received permission to reprint Ryan Anderson’s testimony concerning gay marriage in full. The video of his testimony is below the printed version of it.

I think Mr Anderson makes excellent points in this testimony.

Several commenters who responded to links to it in an earlier post made claims that gay marriage doesn’t change anything. In truth, wherever gay marriage has been legalized, there has been a concomitant attack on the conscience rights of small business people and individuals. We’ll explore that a bit next week.

In the meantime, the links Mr Anderson gives in the written version of his testimony also address those assertions.

From The Witherspoon Institute, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation:

I will be speaking today from the perspective of political science and philosophy to answer the question “What Is Marriage?” I’ve co-authored a book and an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy with a classmate of mine from Princeton, Sherif Girgis, and with a professor of ours, Robert George. Justice Samuel Alito cited our book twice in his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case involving the Defense of Marriage Act.

The title of that book is “What Is Marriage?” An answer to that question is something we didn’t hear today from people on the other side. It’s interesting that we’ve had a three-hour conversation about marriage without much by way of answering that question.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the sociological reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is whether a father will be close by. And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.

Part of this is based on the reality that there’s no such thing as parenting in the abstract: there’s mothering, and there’s fathering. Men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise. Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, “the burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” He then concludes:

We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.

This is why so many states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions.

So why does marriage matter for public policy? Perhaps there is no better way to analyze this than by looking to our own president, President Barack Obama. Allow me to quote him:

We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

There is a host of social science evidence. We go through the litany and cite the studies in our book, but President Obama sums it up pretty well. We’ve seen in the past fifty years, since the war on poverty began, that the family has collapsed. At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious.

The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance. The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.

But when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high. As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty rises. Crime rises. Social mobility decreases. And welfare spending—which bankrupts so many states and the federal government—takes off.

If you care about social justice and limited government, if you care about freedom and the poor, then you have to care about marriage. All of these ends are better served by having the state define marriage correctly rather than the state trying to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture. The state can encourage men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children while leaving other consenting adults free to live and to love as they choose, all without redefining the fundamental institution of marriage.

On that note, we’ve heard concerns about hospital visitation rights (which the federal government has already addressed) and with inheritance laws. Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us. So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

Lastly, I’ll close with three ways in which redefining marriage will undermine the institution of marriage. We hear this question: “how does redefining marriage hurt you or your marriage?” I’ll just mention three in the remaining time that I have.

First, it fundamentally reorients the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults. It no longer makes marriage about ensuring the type of family life that is ideal for kids; it makes it more about adult romance. If one of the biggest social problems we face right now in the United States is absentee dads, how will we insist that fathers are essential when the law redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

Much of the testimony we have heard today was special interest pleading from big business claiming that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it hard for them to appeal to the elite college graduates from the East and the West coasts. We heard no discussion about the common good of the citizens of Indiana—the children who need fathers involved in their lives. Redefining marriage will make it much harder for the law to teach that those fathers are essential.

Second, if you redefine marriage, so as to say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, what principle for policy and for law will retain the other three historic components of marriage? In the United States, it’s always been a monogamous union, a sexually exclusive union, and a permanent union. We’ve already seen new words created to challenge each and every one of those items.

Throuple” is a three-person couple. New York Magazine reports about it. Here’s the question: if I were to sue and say that I demand marriage equality for my throuple, what principle would deny marriage equality to the throuple once you say that the male-female aspect of marriage is irrational and arbitrary? The way that we got to monogamy is that it’s one man and one woman who can unite in the type of action that can create new life and who can provide that new life with one mom and one dad. Once you say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, you will have no principled reason to retain the number two.

Likewise, the term “wedlease” was introduced in the Washington Post in 2013. A wedlease is a play on the term wedlock. It’s for a temporary marriage. If marriage is primarily about adult romance, and romance can come, and it can go, why should the law presume it to be permanent? Why not issue expressly temporary marriage licenses?

And lastly, the term “monogamish.” Monogamish was introduced in the New York Times in 2011. The term suggests we should retain the number two, but that spouses should be free to have sexually open relationships. That it should be two people getting married, but they should be free to have sex outside of that marriage, provided there’s no coercion or deceit.

Now, whatever you think about group marriage, whatever you think about temporary marriage, whatever you think about sexually open marriage, as far as adults living and loving how they choose, think about the social consequences if that’s the future direction in which marriage redefinition would go. For every additional sexual partner a man has and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chances that a man creates children with multiple women without commitment either to those women or to those kids. It increases the likelihood of creating fragmented families, and then big government will step in to pick up the pieces with a host of welfare programs that truly drain the economic prospects of all of our states.

Finally, I’ll mention liberty concerns, religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that.

We’ve also seen in different jurisdictions instances of photographers, bakers, florists, and innkeepers, people acting in the commercial sphere, saying we don’t want to be coerced. And that’s what redefining marriage would do. Redefining marriage would say that every institution has to treat two people of the same sex as if they’re married, even if those institutions don’t believe that they’re married. So the coercion works in the exact opposite direction of what we have heard.

Everyone right now is free to live and to love how they want. Two people of the same sex can work for a business that will give them marriage benefits, if the business chooses to. They can go to a liberal house of worship and have a marriage ceremony, if the house of worship chooses to. What is at stake with redefining marriage is whether the law would now coerce others into treating a same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when doing so violates the conscience and rights of those individuals and those institutions.

So, for all of these reasons, this state and all states have an interest in preserving the definition of marriage as the union—permanent and exclusive—of one man and one woman.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the Editor of Public Discourse. He is co-author, with Sherif Girgis and Robert George, of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

 

YouTube Preview Image

  • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

    There are major flaws in this argument that should render it unconvincing even for those opposed to including same-sex couples in marriage. The author fallaciously claims that, because children in two-parent households have better outcomes than children of single parent, that heterosexual parents are superior to same sex parents. The later simply doesn’t flow from the former. Further, monogamous, exclusive, permanent unions are not gender dependent; it is patently illogical to conclude that “thruple” must be allowed if gender definitions are removed from the institution.

    It is only intellectually honest to say that the “for the benefit of children” argument is grounded solely in traditional morality and not at all in sociology.

    These arguments also ignore the fact that gay couples exist and are raising children. That fact will not change regardless of civil marriage law. Opponents of marriage equality are seeking to deprive children of the financial benefits and security that flows from marriage because they morally disapprove of the family in which they’re being raised. In reality, people like Ryan Anderson not trying to protect children at all; instead they are willfully seeking to disadvantage the children of an unpopular minority.

    • A concerned citizen

      I had this whole paragraph written, but for some reason did not get posted. Instead of re-writing it I will just say I agree with this post above. One thing will say I did not like how Ryan Anderson used the statistic about “fatherless” households:
      “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are
      five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times
      more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end
      up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run
      away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
      foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
      That is because the child/children are being raised by a SINGLE mother, not by a COUPLE (same sex or not). Basically my point in my first post (did not get posted) was that same sex couples bring their values from their childhood and will pass that on to his/her children. They will bring different nurturing/disciplining styles as well. I do not think that gender affects this. It is all about how someone was raised.

      • hamiltonr

        There’s no other post for you like this one, either in spam or the delete box. Maybe you forgot to hit post.

    • Dave

      Sociology bears out the extremely obvious and common sense-based idea that children need a father and a mother. BIOLOGY itself even ENFORCES it rigorously. If you don’t think sociology/psychology/psychiatry show that a mother and a father are needed, I don’t know exactly what you’ve been reading. Probably some cherry picked studies with cherry picked children that show no obvious harm done.

      Mr. Anderson is right that if marriage is all about romantic attachments, and not what is best for children, then what right does anyone have to declare what gender, who, or how many people are included in the romantic attachments?

    • Smithgift

      “There are major flaws in this argument that should render it
      unconvincing even for those opposed to including same-sex couples in
      marriage.”

      I fail to see them.

      “The author fallaciously claims that, because children in two-parent
      households have better outcomes than children of single parent, that
      heterosexual parents are superior to same sex parents.”

      His claim is that the parenting of a father is different than the parenting of a mother. Do you dispute this?

      “Further, monogamous, exclusive, permanent unions are not gender
      dependent; it is patently illogical to conclude that “thruple” must be
      allowed if gender definitions are removed from the institution.”

      Pray tell, then, the argument against letting thruples, wedleases, and monogamishs from adopting and having children. Or do you claim that these, too, are equal to the traditional married couple?

      “These arguments also ignore the fact that gay couples exist and are
      raising children. That fact will not change regardless of civil marriage
      law.”

      Oh, yes it will. Gay couples may exist whether or not the law permits it, but they only may be the legal guardians of children if, and only if, the law permits it. And even if some couples decided to defy the law, this is no more an argument against traditional families than the existence of theft is an argument against property laws.

      “Opponents of marriage equality are seeking to deprive children of the
      financial benefits and security that flows from marriage because they
      morally disapprove of the family in which they’re being raised.”

      If children were being raised by statues, would we then give marital benefits to inanimate stone? Merely because we call a group of people a “family” does not make it a family.

      “In reality, people like Ryan Anderson not trying to protect children at
      all; instead they are willfully seeking to disadvantage the children of
      an unpopular minority.”

      Ad hominem.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      If sociology is not grounded in tradition, then it is worthless.

  • Bill S

    There is a fundemental misconception on the part of those opposed to gay marriage. They seem to think that they can present all kinds of reasons why it should be illegal. They get into children’s rights and religious rights of bakers, photographers, etc.

    There is only one consideration that matters as to whether it should be legal or illegal. Is it a right protected under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment? There are precious few whose opinion really matters.

    It is only a matter of time before a ruling to end all rulings is made by the Supreme Court. It is not a matter of public opinion. It is a matter of equal rights under the law. Gays either do or don’t have equal rights when it comes to civil marriage. We know that they don’t when it comes to sacramental marriage and they never will. That is just the way the Catholic Church is. Always has been. Always will be. But it has zero influence in the civil and judicial aspects of this issue.

    • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben @ 2CM

      Isn’t the real question about interpreting “What is marriage?”, not interpreting “Who has the right to marriage?”

      • Bill S

        Yes. And marriage is not defined by any religion. It is defined by civil authorities in terms of how the word is used in matters of civil law.

        • Smithgift

          If marriage is a purely civil matter, and the only argument that matters is whether the Constitution demands it, then, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, was it A-OK that anti-sodomy laws and the like existed?

          • Bill S

            It wasn’t A-OK as far as I am concerned. But until the fourteenth amendment, states could have laws that denied people their constitutional rights.

        • ME

          Its amazing to me to think that because they’ve already defined it across pretty much all societies, all across the world, that we are that much more enlightened to know what’s so much better than what everyone has understood for the last couple thousand years. I’m saddened to see us progress so far, we’ve gone back a few millennia in our thinking…

          • Bill S

            You are saddened that gays are achieving equal rights. Great.

            • ME

              No, I’m saddened by the arrogance of our society, that thinks we know better about everything and disregard thousands of years of history and what it has taught us.

              • Bill S

                The more we learn, the more progressive we can be in correcting the errors of the past. The time has come to realize that gays have rights that have been denied to them for thousands of years. It is time to put an end to discrimination.

        • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben @ 2CM

          Agreed, but any definition requires “limits” and limits should have a rationale. Procreation as the rational bases for defining marriage explains the number 2, it explains make/female, it explains why sex is involved, it explains why close relatives cannot marry, it explains why property rights are important. Marriage defined as male & female matching the way humans reproduce isn’t just some weird coincidence.

          • Bill S

            Procreation is not a factor in whether gays can mate or not.

        • Dave

          Bill, are you seriously saying that marriage is whatever government says it is? Well, then you are basically saying marriage has no meaning in itself.

          • Bill S

            Yes. Marriage is defined by state law. State laws that violate the constitutional rights of people will be struck down by the courts. But, ultimately, it is the state that defines it.

        • FW Ken

          Actually, marriage predates existing religions or governments, although it’s probably more accurate to say that it transcends religions and governments. It’s a self-defining aspect of humanity. In as much as religions and governments involve communal activities, they regulate marriage within their communities, but they don’t define it.

          • Bill S

            Well then why do all those pesky state laws presume to define marriage as being between one man and one woman? For civil purposes, the states define marriage and when those definitions are deemed to be unconstitutional, they are rendered null and void by the courts, which have the final say (eventually).

            • hamiltonr

              Bill, the Supreme Court has NOT “deemed” states laws defining marriage to be “unconstitutional.”

              • Bill S

                That is true. I didn’t mean to suggest that it has. As things stand right now, the laws against gay marriage in Utah and Oklahoma have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the lower courts pending appeals. It is unlikely that same sex marriage will be licensed in those states unless the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases or grant the appeals. Or, if a lower court grants an appeal, a subsequent appeal of that decision would be required.

                It will be a while. But I anticipate that discrimination against same sex couples will one day be illegal in this country and in every and all states. Notwithstanding any religious exemptions or accommodations.

            • FW Ken

              Go back and read what I wrote. It appears you are claiming that marriage does not precede government regulation.

              • pesq87

                But many of our human institutions predate government regulation – like property rights, Can’t we also say that property rights “transcend religion and governments?” Yes, we can. Marriage is super-important, but it is not ‘self-defining.”

                • FW Ken

                  Property rights are far from universal, but yes, it’s true that much about a society is rooted in our common humanity nature rather civil law.I would argue that the success of a culture less in its adherence to human nature.

                  • pesq87

                    FWKen, either I’m not following your point or the internet goblins (hey, that’s who I blame) stole a word or two from your post solely to confuse me. In any event, I disagree about property rights vs marriage rights. Bear with me here please: Not everyone gets married, but almost everyone owns (or has at one time in their lives owned) a shirt or a shoe or a stick or a rock or a piece of land or a seashell. IN that respect, property rights are pretty universal. And as humans (across the continents and across the centuries) we’ve created systems of laws (sometimes crude and sometimes complex) governing that ownership interest and how that ownership interest can be transferred to someone else. And we change those laws when necessary. Point being, the idea that marriage is a social institution that “predates” or “transcends” religions and governments, is also true of other social constructs that societies regulate. It’s OK for people to regulate civil marriage, to look at it and ask ourselves what is the best way to make this institution work for us.

              • Bill S

                No. I wasn’t saying that. But as it stands today in this country, marriage is what the state says it is and the state can’t violate the 14th amendment.

                • hamiltonr

                  Bill the Supreme Court has not ruled that marriage is a federally regulated entity. It also has not placed it under the 14th Amendment.

                  • Bill S

                    I know. It is up to the states to define marriage. I’m just saying that these state laws cannot violate the 14th Amendment or they will be struck down by the courts with the final appeal going to the Supreme Court.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      “There is only one consideration that matters as to whether it should be legal or illegal. Is it a right protected under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment? ”

      I don’t see sexual orientation anywhere in either. So the answer is no. And any attempt to shoehorn it in, or fail to shoehorn it in, is going to create violent rebellion against the Supreme Court.

      • radiofreerome

        I don’t care that strongly about same-sex marriage, but if the Court ever decides that gay people are categorically denied equal treatment under the law, I’ll hoist the black flag.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          And many on the other side would do the same if the court ever decides that heterosexual marriage isn’t important enough to protect. At which point, you have a court stuck between a rock and a hard place.

      • Bill S

        How does one wage violent rebellion against a court?

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          By kidnapping and killing the appointed representatives of that court.
          —-
          Editing my reply, because I have little time today and the issue is important.

          “Violence, while it may come from either side, isn’t going to be a solution for this issue.”

          Which is exactly my point. I fear even raising the issue will come to violence. The emotions run too high, on both sides.

          “The court is only reading tea leaves regarding what the country wants, and then fabricating plausible-sounding rulings loosely based on the Constitution.”

          That isn’t the job of the court. The job of the court is to enforce the law as written, not pay attention to opinion polls. Paying attention to opinion, from either side, will just get them into major trouble- causing the very revolution you and I would hope to avoid.

          ” It would be nice if our officials, elected and otherwise, had more character than this, but they too are a reflection of our nation.”

          Yes, it would, but that would require a fundamentally different form of government.

          • Dave

            Settle down, Ted. Violence, while it may come from either side, isn’t going to be a solution for this issue.

            The court is only reading tea leaves regarding what the country wants, and then fabricating plausible-sounding rulings loosely based on the Constitution. It would be nice if our officials, elected and otherwise, had more character than this, but they too are a reflection of our nation.

          • Dave

            Thanks for the clarification, Ted. I misread your statement.

            “Yes, it would, but that would require a fundamentally different form of government.”

            Such as random citizen selection? I’m convinced we’d get a significantly better government by selecting random citizens over the age of…say…35.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              I’ve said before I prefer the Kingdom of God to the democracy of man. Still do. I see the Enlightenment as a huge mistake. Maybe not as huge as the Sexual Revolution though.

          • pesq87

            “The job of the court is to enforce the law as written…” Ted, courts don’t enforce laws. That’s ABSOLUTELY not the job of the courts. You either had a big typo or you are presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of the 3 branches of government. If the latter, then all of your comments suddenly make sense.

            • hamiltonr

              I’m allowing this because your main point is valid. But do not insult Ted.

              • pesq87

                I don’t believe i said anything insulting.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  I didn’t take it as an insult, though it could have been said better. I see my mistake now that I think about it, You see the police as an agent of the executive, I see them as an agent of the judicial branch.

              • pesq87

                wasn’t fw ken insulting with his ‘someone like you” comment? Rebecca, your commenting standards are applied capriciously at best. I’m not the first to say so.

                • hamiltonr

                  I cut certain people more slack than others, based on their commenting history and what I have learned about them as people. I am also somewhat protective of certain people. You are free to comment here, but you may not insult Ted.

                  • FW Ken

                    Rebecca, no slack requested. :-) I’m a big boy in several directions.

                    However, as noted, no offense was intended, and it’s a shame a careless phrase gave occasion to evading my intended point. My bad.

                    My reason for this comment is that I had resolved to avoid these repetitive arguments this year, and here I am at it again. My most grievous bad.

                    • hamiltonr

                      They drag you in Ken. I know how it goes.

                • FW Ken

                  No insult intended. I was merely staying the obvious that certain people read through a rather hazy filter and thus miss the point to which they intend a rebuttal.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              It isn’t the job of the courts to enforce the law and pronounce judgement against criminals?

              If nobody is enforcing the laws, then why have a government at all?

              • hamiltonr

                Ted, the way we do it is that legislators create laws, courts adjudicate (rule on) those laws, (even though courts have taken to creating law, that is not their legitimate function) and law enforcement enforces the laws. Law enforcement is considered part of the judicial branch, so technically, you are correct. However, most people don’t look at it that way.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  Oh, I see where I made the mistake- not separating the police from the judge. I see the police as the agent of the courts- the entire law enforcement system as one “judicial branch”.

      • kenofken

        If there are individuals or groups holding violence as an ultimatum in public policy, which is nothing other than terrorism, we as a country owe them zero consideration in making that policy. Terrorists by their nature have repudiated the notions of rule of law and participatory government. They have therefore relinquished all claims to the protections and privileges of democracy. A democracy which makes concessions to armed terror or the threat of it is not long for this world, and our country has learned that several times over since the Civil War.

    • The original Mr. X

      “There is only one consideration that matters as to whether it should be legal or illegal. Is it a right protected under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment?”
      The people who actually wrote and passed the Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment didn’t seem to think so.

      • Bill S

        They weren’t thinking about it at the time. They didn’t anticipate all the ways that the states would try to take away our Constitutional rights. I’m not saying it is a Constitutional right. That is up to the courts.

        • ME

          So your claim for equal rights doesn’t count for the kids involved in these unions? Seems kinda bogus to me to throw out that consideration. Of course there are times when ones rights need to be restricted for the good of society.

  • A concerned citizen

    Correction:

    *Ryan Anderson (not Ryan Thompson).

    • hamiltonr

      Huh?

  • A concerned citizen

    Well I though I posted something where I accidentally said Ryan Anderson instead of Ryan Thompson. But looks like it didn’t get posted. I will have to rewrite it now.

  • Sus_1

    Thank you for posting this Rebecca. There’s a lot to think about.

    If I thought that not allowing gay marriage was going to change the fact that heterosexuals are having children without the benefit of marriage and are raising them without the person they made the kid with, I might change my view.

    It’s too late in my mind. We’ve already mucked it up with divorce and having babies casually. Gay marriage isn’t going to make it worse.

    The issue that businesses don’t want to do business for gay weddings will be worked out. I’m confident it will be worked out so that people’s religion will be respected along with the gay couples being respected. This is America. We can do this.

    No one seems to be able to answer this question. What do opponents want now that gay marriage is legal in 17 states? Do opponents want these states to change the law again and say these people are not married? We’re coming up on half of the country. I feel confident that in the next 5 years it will be legal in all states. The majority of people in this country are not going to be affected personally by gay marriage.

    • Dave

      “We’ve already mucked it up with divorce and having babies casually.”
      I never really thought the argument that “since heterosexuals have already demolished marriage to a large extent, we might as well go the rest of the way and destroy it completely” was a particularly good argument.

      “The majority of people in this country are not going to be affected personally by gay marriage.” If it weren’t for the fact that many (most?) people’s thinking skills are so degraded that they draw an equivalence between what is legal and what is right, I might somewhat agree with you.

  • radiofreerome

    80% of children in the custody of same sex couples are the biological children of one partner from a previous heterosexual relationship, a little less 20% are adopted, and almost none are the result of surrogacy, which accounts for a fewer than 50 births per year in the entire United States. This is not about gays harming children, it is about Christians persecuting the biological children of gays because of those Christian hate gays.

    • hamiltonr

      I don’t know where you’re getting your figures, but the page after page of ads for surrogacy centers on google, plus the international surrogacy industry which as resulted in treating women like pregnancy slaves who supply babies in some third world countries, really calls them into question. If these figures come from some official source, then I would say that the source itself is inaccurate. It has to be, considering the amount of money changing hands on this and the high pressure tactics used to recruit women to subject their bodies to being harvested and used for surrogacy.

      My objections to egg harvesting and paid surrogacy have nothing to do with “hating gays.” I was opposed to both these things long before I figured out that the demand for women’s eggs was coming from two things: experimentation, particularly embryonic stem cell experimentation, and gay couples.

      What my opposition to this is about is that I am a feminist and a woman and I find this callous exploitation and abuse of women reprehensible.

      I have not called for any penalties for the gay couples who are availing themselves of these “services.” I have, and will continue, to call for the doctors who do this being banned from practicing medicine. I think they belong in prison, but, given that the medical associations have made it their politically powerful business to use all their clout to protect this misogynist medical malpractice, I’ll stop there.

      On a side note, it’s a cheap bit of nonsense to claim that every opinion that differs from yours must come from a hatred of homosexuals. There is no excuse for using women this way. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    • FW Ken

      Perhaps you can provide instances of Christians actually persecuting the children of gays.

      As to hate, who, precisely, hates who is well documented by a campaign of slander.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X