Mayday for Marriage? Where's the fire?

I have yet to hear a valid argument from any straight couple on how a gay couple ruined "their" marriage. Some people aren't happy unless they have someone else to be prejudiced against.

Visit me @ http://pimme.blog-city.com

I'm a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Why? Is it because I want to hate others? No.

I really don't care whether homosexuals have sex with each other, or whether they establish short or long-term relationships with each other or not. What they do in private is their business, and does not threaten me at all.

However, in terms of public life, there are a few issues that are relevant here. Please bear with me.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I have some concerns. We have a national law called the Defense of Marriage act. This federal legislation defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, this law is doomed to being declared unconstutional as soon as it goes to the Supremes for validation. We have this constitutional idea known as the "full faith and credit" clause that establishes that every state must give full faith and credit to laws of other states.

When a state, such as Massachusetts makes a law that marriage is legal between two men or two women, it seems constitutionally consistent to require that all others states recognize that as a valid marriage. The DOMA is in conflict with the "full faith and credit" clause. It's simply a matter of time before the constitution will trump the DOMA, and when that happens, homosexual marriage will be immediately valid in all 50 states.

So what? Who cares?

Marriage in the US has been weakened over the last 50 years as we have become more 'progressive' and more 'liberal.' Has that been good for our country? I'm inclined to believe that this trend has been detrimental to our culture.

We are a bit behind Europe in the area of gay marriage. Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 1989. How is it working for them? 60% of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Some people point out that divorce rates have dropped there. This is the case because marriage rates have dropped, too. As marriage has been weakened and is believed to be less relevant, fewer couples ever get married - even if they have kids together.

Studies have shown that cohabitating couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. Is it good for children to grow up in homes with one of their parents and not the other? Domestic violence rates against stepchildren are substantially greater than for biological children. Is it a good thing to have more stepchildren?

The story is much the same in Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage in the years following Denmark's decision.

I predict that similar things will occur here in the states once gay marriage becomes a legal reality nationwide.
Unfortunately we won't really begin to see the results of this experiment until the kids that live that experience grow up, and by then it will be too late.

Meanwhile, what will happen to my constitutional right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion? Already the government has placed siginificant restrictions on what my church leadership can say about the political process and maintain tax-exempt status. Once gay marriage is the law of the land, I fear that restrictions will be placed on what my minister can say about homosexual relations. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts - as it condemns heterosexual sex acts that occur outside of marriage.

We are already seeing that there is a move to extend laws further - to define speech against homosexual behavior as hate speech. This is already well underway in Canada. It is conceivable that my firmly held religious beliefs will one day be criminal in the name of tolerance.

Could that really happen here? I think that it is possible. The 9th federal circuit court already ruled that the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance were a violation of the so-called constitutional requirement for separation of church and state. The Supremes refused to hear that one. It's just a matter of time.

I predict that unchecked, once we establish 'civil rights' on the basis of volitional behaviors, there will be no end to the rights that must be established and protected. If marriage is a right for two men, why not three? Why not two men and four women? I know that this probably strains credulity, but I believe that the logical outcome will be legal precedents protecting all sorts of sexual orientations.
Eventually participants in bestiality and every other sexual practice will be defined as protected classes of citizens.

Even if that does not happen, once same-sex marriage is legally recognized, schools will change their curriculum to reflect that same-sex marriage is another of a number of socially acceptable unions, and my kids will be taught that in schools. There's already a significant movement to introduce sexually explicit education to young kids - I'm talking about first, second, and third graders. SIECUS is not my friend, and the outcome of their movement will ultimately bear bad fruit for our culture. I'd submit to you that it already has.

Am I overly alarmist? Do I need to have my tinfoil hat adjusted? Perhaps. In fact, even if this becomes the law of the land, all of my predictions become true, and even worse things happen - I don't have to fear. My hope is not built on the protection of the constitution. However, it is my responsibility as a citizen of a free society, and as a committed Christian, to get involved in the political process. I'm doing my part to push for an amendment to the US constitution that will define marriage as between a man and a woman. That should stave off - at least for a bit - some of the 'progressive' movement that seeks to force its worldview down my throat.

I reiterate that I don't care whether men (or women) live together, and in the privacy of their domicile bring pleasure to each other. I don't care if they establish contractual relationships that allow them to make medical decisions for each other, inherit each others property, or whatever other legal agreements they want to make between themselves. This is already completely legal today. What I object to is the establishment of a civil-rights style protections on the basis of behavior. These protections ultimately infringe on my freedoms, and they harm our culture as a whole.

That is why I support the FMA, and why I'm planning to encourage as many people as I can to attend the Mayday for Marriage rally.

Respectfully,
Tom

I linked to this post from a Reddit comment. One AndreasK (http://www.reddit.com/user/andreask/) *created an account* so he could reply.

=====

I don't give much for your friend's "statistics" though.

Firstly, he claims we have legalized marriage in Sweden, when in reality we only have "registered partnerships", civil unions, and the same seems to go for Denmark. There is still talk about allowing gay marriage, but we too have a vocal opposition claiming that it would destroy the institution of marriage. "In November 2008, the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, stated that the government wishes for a gender-neutral marriage law to be put in place by May 2009," though.

Then he goes on to compare the marriage statistics of USA, one of the most Christian nations of the western world, with that of a few secular Scandinavian countries, blaming the statistical difference on our acceptance of gay union (I guess, see above). He makes no attempt to actually track any difference in our marriage rates since we instituted civil unions (1995 apparently), and concludes that, according to this claimed decline, our children face an increasing risk of domestic abuse.

I'll say this, regardless of our rates of marriage and separation, judging by the attitude on Internet forums and in popular culture, The US seems to be much more at ease with corporal punishment. Am I correct in this observation? Few Swedes would ever admit to hitting a child, and according to Wikipedia 86% of 10-12-year-olds claim they have never suffered any form of corporal punishment by a parent.

(Then of course he goes on to claim that removing "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance would conflict with his freedom of religion, which to me sounds like he's disregarding the right of any non-Christian American. But I'll admit this is a topic I have lesser understanding of.)

=====

See http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7ic7o/the_most_heartbreakin g_and_viscerally_upsetting/c06qr30