The case against same-sex marriage
6/28/2008 7:31:00 PM
By Jane Chastain -www.worldnetdaily.com
In California, homosexual activists have pulled out all the stops to try to get the looney-tunes state Supreme Court to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the November ballot that would undo its recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.
These homosexuals contend that the initiative, if enacted, "would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees." Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is nothing in the state's constitutional that guarantees that any two people have a right to marry each other. Four justices on California's high court pulled it out of thin air. Impeachment proceedings against these jurists, who overstepped their bounds, usurped the citizenry and assumed the role of lawmakers should have begun immediately. Instead, the good citizens of the Golden State decided to go around these jurists by using the initiative process. Should the majority of this court vote to take this measure off the ballot, the people of California will have no choice but to resort to the former action to preserve traditional marriage in the state.
The law that has governed traditional marriage is in no way discriminatory. A marriage applicant does not have to declare his or her sexual preference to apply for a marriage license, and there is no test for a gay gene, as one doesn't exist. Homosexuals always have been free to marry. Many have been married in the past and likely will enter into heterosexual marriages in the future. They simply were not free to marry a person of the same gender.
Marriage is governed by laws. Laws are made by the people and their representatives. Peter Sprigg, the director of Marriage and Family Studies at Family Research Council, points out in "Questions and Answers: What's Wrong with Letting Same-Sex couples Marry?" that the right to marry "rests with individuals, not with couples." All individuals are free to marry, but we cannot marry whomever we choose. I cannot marry my daughter or any other minor or another woman. I cannot marry my father or my cat or a group of men. That may well be my sexual preference or "orientation," as it is often called, but that is against the law in most places.
There are sound public policy reasons that have nothing to do with religion for a state to protect and encourage (reward) traditional marriage. These must be articulated if traditional marriage is to be preserved in California and elsewhere.
Children who are raised by their married mother and father become more productive citizens. They do better in school, are less likely to bear children out of wedlock, do drugs, abuse alcohol or be a burden on society.
Heterosexual married adults do better than single adults. They have better physical and emotional health, longer lives, are less likely to be victims of any type of violent crime, have more household income and are less likely to be a burden on society.
The same arguments cannot be made for homosexual unions, which tend to be revolving doors. A study from the Netherlands - the first country to legalize same-sex marriage - found the average length of these parings was two and a quarter years. Furthermore, most homosexuals in these unions do not remain monogamous, nor does that appear to be the goal. The Dutch study found that homosexual men in these relationships had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
Why do homosexuals want the right to marry? Marriage is society's ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship. Homosexuals want that approval. However, there are no corresponding public policy benefits for encouraging and rewarding the practice of homosexuality.
Homosexual men and women experience higher rates of disease. In fact, researchers around the world have reported that homosexuals in "committed" relationships are more likely to engage in risky, unsanitary sexual practices than "single" gays.
- Homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol, become dependent on drugs and nicotine, suffer depression and attempt suicide.
- Homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence.
- Children raised by lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. They are more sexually adventurous and less chaste.
- Homosexual males are much more likely to abuse children sexually than heterosexual males.
Bottom line: The hedge of protection that the state has put around traditional marriage is good public policy. There are no compelling public policy reasons for allowing homosexual couples inside the hedge to erode those benefits.
Furthermore, there are no replicated scientific studies to support the myth that homosexuality is genetic and this "practice" is an immutable characteristic like race and gender.
#####
Jane Chastain is a Southern California-based broadcaster, author and political commentator. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Jane's blog.
6/28/2008 7:31:00 PM
By Jane Chastain -www.worldnetdaily.com
In California, homosexual activists have pulled out all the stops to try to get the looney-tunes state Supreme Court to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the November ballot that would undo its recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.
These homosexuals contend that the initiative, if enacted, "would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees." Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is nothing in the state's constitutional that guarantees that any two people have a right to marry each other. Four justices on California's high court pulled it out of thin air. Impeachment proceedings against these jurists, who overstepped their bounds, usurped the citizenry and assumed the role of lawmakers should have begun immediately. Instead, the good citizens of the Golden State decided to go around these jurists by using the initiative process. Should the majority of this court vote to take this measure off the ballot, the people of California will have no choice but to resort to the former action to preserve traditional marriage in the state.
The law that has governed traditional marriage is in no way discriminatory. A marriage applicant does not have to declare his or her sexual preference to apply for a marriage license, and there is no test for a gay gene, as one doesn't exist. Homosexuals always have been free to marry. Many have been married in the past and likely will enter into heterosexual marriages in the future. They simply were not free to marry a person of the same gender.
Marriage is governed by laws. Laws are made by the people and their representatives. Peter Sprigg, the director of Marriage and Family Studies at Family Research Council, points out in "Questions and Answers: What's Wrong with Letting Same-Sex couples Marry?" that the right to marry "rests with individuals, not with couples." All individuals are free to marry, but we cannot marry whomever we choose. I cannot marry my daughter or any other minor or another woman. I cannot marry my father or my cat or a group of men. That may well be my sexual preference or "orientation," as it is often called, but that is against the law in most places.
There are sound public policy reasons that have nothing to do with religion for a state to protect and encourage (reward) traditional marriage. These must be articulated if traditional marriage is to be preserved in California and elsewhere.
Children who are raised by their married mother and father become more productive citizens. They do better in school, are less likely to bear children out of wedlock, do drugs, abuse alcohol or be a burden on society.
Heterosexual married adults do better than single adults. They have better physical and emotional health, longer lives, are less likely to be victims of any type of violent crime, have more household income and are less likely to be a burden on society.
The same arguments cannot be made for homosexual unions, which tend to be revolving doors. A study from the Netherlands - the first country to legalize same-sex marriage - found the average length of these parings was two and a quarter years. Furthermore, most homosexuals in these unions do not remain monogamous, nor does that appear to be the goal. The Dutch study found that homosexual men in these relationships had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
Why do homosexuals want the right to marry? Marriage is society's ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship. Homosexuals want that approval. However, there are no corresponding public policy benefits for encouraging and rewarding the practice of homosexuality.
Homosexual men and women experience higher rates of disease. In fact, researchers around the world have reported that homosexuals in "committed" relationships are more likely to engage in risky, unsanitary sexual practices than "single" gays.
- Homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol, become dependent on drugs and nicotine, suffer depression and attempt suicide.
- Homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence.
- Children raised by lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. They are more sexually adventurous and less chaste.
- Homosexual males are much more likely to abuse children sexually than heterosexual males.
Bottom line: The hedge of protection that the state has put around traditional marriage is good public policy. There are no compelling public policy reasons for allowing homosexual couples inside the hedge to erode those benefits.
Furthermore, there are no replicated scientific studies to support the myth that homosexuality is genetic and this "practice" is an immutable characteristic like race and gender.
#####
Jane Chastain is a Southern California-based broadcaster, author and political commentator. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Jane's blog.
Just out of curiosity, did you have to do any stretching exercises before pulling those "facts" about homosexuality out of your butt? Seriously, none of those bulletpoints have any scientific or research-based basis and seem kind of similar to the arguments used against interracial marriage in the 1950's.
ReplyDeleteI have two questions for you:
ReplyDelete1) How will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexual couples from having (or adopting) children?
2) How will denying marriage equality prevent homosexual couples from having (or adopting) children?
If the goal is to protect children by encouraging their being born into homes with both mother and father present, how do these constitutional amendments further that goal?
Dearest Tom,
ReplyDeleteYou may ask your query in EWTN.com forum. They will give you much more enlightenment.