On February 12, 2004, the rule of law was officially thrown out the window by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome. Newsome, in his own wisdom, decided that the electorate of the state of California was ignorant in passing California’s Defense of Marriage Act. This locally elected official took the law into his own hands and declared a popularly approved measure to be invalid, effectively opening a window to allow homosexual couples to be issued licenses to marry under his authority.
Although that assault has been somewhat effectively repulsed, another front opened in this battle for the soul of America. On May 17th, 2004, under order from 4 justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, homosexuals were afforded the right to “marry”, and over 2500 licenses were issued to homosexual pairs. However, as with many long term wars, this one did not begin with the very public upheavals of 2004.
The first assault came in the early 1940s, when the United States Supreme Court held that marriage is a “status” conferred by the government rather than a covenantal contractual relationship between one man and one woman for life, ordained by God, and blessed by the community(1). The next step was to equate marriage and cohabitation. That goal was accomplished between 1980-2002 through the enactment of “domestic partnership” and “civil union” legislation. The next, and perhaps final, phase – extending full “marital” status to homosexual and other relationships is well underway.
The following is a quote from three Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judges who stated their court should not IMPOSE same sex marriage on Massachusetts citizens. (Goodrich v. Mass. Dept. of Health, at 42):
“…the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As the court correctly recognizes, constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples. Ante n.15. The marriage statutes do not disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court … Within the institution of marriage, anyone is free to marry, with certain exceptions that are not challenged. In the absence of any discriminatory purpose, the State’s marriage statutes do not violate principles of equal protection. …
The marriage statutes do not impermissibly burden a right protected by our constitutional guarantee of due process implicit in art. 10 of our Declaration of Rights. There is no restriction on the right of any plaintiff to enter into marriage. Each is free to marry a willing person of the opposite sex.”
For someone to say that they are being “denied” rights is disingenuous: a right reserved under law for those meeting the definition of “married”, “spouse”, “husband” and “wife” has never been accessible by those choosing to engage in homosexual activity. One cannot be “denied” a right one was not eligible to obtain in the first place.
Unlike gender, ethnicity or disability, which are immutable, inherent, or involuntary characteristics, sexual orientation (A) is a chosen or learned behavior. Analogies or comparisons of homosexual demands to legitimate civil rights secured for Americans based on such characteristics cheapens and devalues these fundamental tenets of justice.
Homosexual activists declare that they want an “end to discrimination for all”. However, when pressed on the logic end of opening marriage recognition to include those who “are in a loving, committed relationship (their phrasing)” such as polygamous, incestuous, pedophilic or more deviant pairings, it is suddenly clear that even same sex marriage proponents feel the need to discriminate and deny certain people the legal recognition and benefits of marriage.
Same sex marriage proposes a social experiment to be given the legal and social imprimatur of the state. This is part of the vision of social engineers who reject God’s commands and warnings on this issue:
[Society] could and should view intimate affiliations along a morally neutral continuum, just as we view business associations along a morally neutral continuum. Such an approach would render the difference among marriage, cohabitation, and polyamory as morally neutral as the difference among incorporation, partnership, and limited liability companies.(2)
However, the data continually indicates that same-sex pairings are not beneficial for society. Same-sex pairings never produce offspring, same-sex households have comparative or lower rates of success in raising children as do single parent households, adult male homosexuals have life expectancy 20 years shorter than the total male population, homosexuals are statistically more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society (by a factor of 6), one in almost every two homosexual men suffer domestic abuse that results in hospitalization, 55% of lesbians suffer violent domestic abuse, and up to 84% of homosexuals suffer emotional abuse within relationships (data from Journal of Family Violence and from studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice).
Social scientists are also finding that marriage is not just a word whose definition can be changed at whim to satisfy the “moment”; it is intimately connected to the idea of civilized society. Indeed, in all societies which have been successful, the institution of marriage has been upheld as a high social good, a goal to be desired, nurtured and provided recognition and status by the instrumentalities of governance. It has also been reserved to the Biblical framework model: one man and one woman joined in marriage for the purpose of creating a family (Genesis 2:23-24) and for rearing of future generations (Genesis 3:15-16; 4:1-2; 5: 1-3).
- Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) (Williams I) (holding that marriage is a status determined by the state in which one of the spouses is domiciled); Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945) (Williams II) (holding that the state of the marital domicile must recognize the divorce decree if the divorcing spouse was, in fact, a domiciliary of the state that entered the decree).
- Martha M. Ertman, The [American Law Institute] Principles’ Approach To Domestic Partnership, 8 Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 107, 114 & n. 30 (Spring/Summer 2001). See also Martha M. Ertman, Marriage as a Trade: Bridging the Private/Private Distinction, 36 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 79, 85-98 (2001) (providing a critique of the “naturalized model of the family and support for its replacement by business-related models such as the partnership mode”) (emphases added).
A. A complete listing (not found in any current laws or proposals relative to the use of the term “sexual orientation”) is found in the following from scientific literature on the subject:
NOTE: Page numbers are from “Paraphilias,” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582
1. Apotemnophilia – sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an amputee
2. Asphyxophilia – sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
3. Autogynephilia – the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
4. Bisexual – the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
5. Coprophilia – sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
6. Exhibitionism – the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
7. Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism – obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
8. Frotteurism – approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
9. Heterosexuality – the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
10. Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian – people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
11. Gender Identity Disorder – a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, “along with” persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
12. Gerontosexuality – distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
13. Incest – sex with a sibling or parent
14. Kleptophilia – obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
15. Klismaphilia – erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
16. Necrophilia – sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
17. Partialism – A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
18. Pedophilia – Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
19. Prostitution – the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
20. Sexual Masochism – obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573)
21. Sexual Sadism – the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
22. Telephone Scatalogia – sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
23. Toucherism – characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
24. Transgenderism – an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
25. Transsexual – a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
26. Transvestite – a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
27. Transvestic Fetishism – intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
28. Urophilia – sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
29. Voyeurism – obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
30. Zoophilia/Bestiality – engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)