 |
||||
|
|
DENNIS DURBAND
Refuting the Arizona Human Rights Fund's Claims about Marriage 'Equality' June 20, 2005
Homosexual activist members of the Arizona Human Rights Fund (AHRF) were probably all excited Saturday as they got ready to attend their 14th Annual Awards Dinner. Their champion, Governor Janet Napolitano, would be there. Their leaders would have a soapbox from which to bash conservatives and the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative which will give voters an opportunity to preserve marriage as is, on Election Day in 2006. But something went wrong. The governor did not address the marriage initiative. Ever mindful of wooing undiscerning Republicans to her re-election cause, Napolitano robbed the AHRF faithful of a completely fulfilling awards dinner. Today, the news media mentioned the fund’s dissatisfaction with this betrayal by the liberal icon in moderate’s clothing. In a time when homosexual activists are denying they even have an agenda, the state’s largest homosexual activist organization is actively working to oppose the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition and the initiative. AHRF has inspired its members to write hundreds of letters to the editor, while the defenders of marriage haven’t yet worked up much of a sweat in arguing their case to the mainstream media. AHRF has posted on its website “10 Reasons for Marriage Equality.” It is now time to work up a sweat opposing those 10 points. None of them stand up to scrutiny, as we see in the following examination. The AHRF points appear in bold with my rebuttal following each point: Marriage equality would build on America’s tradition of moving civil rights forward and erasing the inequities of the past. The State of Arizona recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. A person’s chosen behavior, in this case homosexuality, does not merit qualifications for civil rights protections. There are no past or present inequities related to marriage and gender. The grand-nephew of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jarett Ellis, testified before the Massachusetts Legislature that homosexual marriage does not meet the criteria of being a civil rights issue. The very thought of this angers many African-Americans. Mr. Ellis said: In order to answer that question, we must establish that, in order to attain civil rights legitimacy, any represented person or group must specifically show: · A history of
economic disenfranchisement As to the issue of economic disenfranchisement, though the poverty and unemployment rates among blacks in America remains roughly two times the national average, economic performance in the gay community is roughly 1.5 times greater than the general population. Complaints against gay discrimination in the workforce barely register against the backdrop of minority and gender based discrimination complaints. Homosexuals in this nation have never been able to claim economic disenfranchisement or oppression. As to the issue of political disenfranchisement, homosexuals have always enjoyed free access to America's voting system and show increasing access to and exercise of political representation absent civil rights initiatives. So again, where lies the complaint? As to the issue of unfair legal discrimination based on an immutable intrinsic trait or characteristic, the gay rights agenda again falls pitifully short of civil rights legitimacy. Science can offer no proof of intrinsic homosexual orientation. Yet, practical experience and testimony that homosexual practice is a purposeful, and therefore not an immutable or intrinsic behavior, is offered by the many who have willingly left the gay lifestyle to practice celibacy or heterosexuality. Marriage protects couples nationwide. The safest arrangement for families – and especially women and children – is an intact family with a married mother and a father present in the home. All other arrangements result in higher rates of social problems, such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and child abuse. What kind of able-bodied, healthy man needs protection from another man? Separate is not equal. AHRF argues that homosexuals “will not be truly equal until they, too, can receive marriage licenses.” Polygamists could say the same thing, and they would be just as wrong. Equality is not determined by rights given to people merely because they chose some unusual behavior that doesn’t meet the requirements, in this case, of the institution of marriage. Public support is growing. Actually, public support for homosexual marriage is on the decrease, especially since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In less than a year, 14 states have overwhelming voted to amend their state constitutions to prevent liberal judges from creating homosexual marriage. The good liberal folks at CBS and the New York Times recently reported their survey results indicating that 59 percent of Americans support a federal marriage amendment, 77 percent of Republicans support a federal marriage amendment, 67 percent of Blacks support a federal marriage amendment and 52 percent of Democrats support a federal marriage amendment. GLBT people deserve equal access to the American dream. This is another attempt at language manipulation. Homosexuals are so good at manipulating terms and phrases and positioning words to take on new meanings. Few patriots agree that the American Dream has to do with anything remotely close to same-sex marriage, or judicial tyranny, for that matter. It is an undisputable fact that the vast majority of homosexuals do not want marriage rights. Marriage provides families stability and security. The claim is true, but only as it relates to heterosexual marriage. Homosexual relationships last far shorter than heterosexual relationships. Married lesbians in Sweden are three times as likely to divorce as married heterosexual women. The spring 2004 weddings of Massachusetts homosexuals are wilting like faded roses. Infidelity is the rule of the day in homosexual relationships, according to peer-reviewed social science research. In Scandinavia and the Netherlands, the advent of homosexual marriage has brought with it a reduction in marriage as an institution. Fewer people – of either gender – are getting married, and 80 percent of children are born into homes with no married parents present. The social woes accompanying this phenomenon are anything but positive for the governments and communities in those nations. There are hundreds of ways in which state laws take marital status into account, including some of the most basic of human rights. Marriage is an important institution. As the family goes, so goes the society. Governments and communities have a vested interest in the success of the family. All social trends favor the opposite-sex marriage model. Public policy demands that heterosexual unions only be recognized by authorizing jurisdictions. Other relational arrangements result in far more social ills requiring a net drain on public resources. Activists have their sights set on the hundreds of laws accompanying marriage, to claim unearned benefits for their own. If homosexuals did not engage in risky behavior, talk of hospital visitation rights would be a moot point. The Constitution promises liberty and justice to all Americans, not just the majority. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize the benefits of opposite-sex marriage, which provides the maximum opportunity for vital communities and families. The U.S. Constitution is not a tool to be abused by the radical homosexual agenda. All Americans are subject to the guarantees of the Constitution, and homosexual activists should not attempt to shade those guarantees for purposes that were never originally intended. No religious institution would be required to perform a ceremony. Not so. No one can guarantee this smoke screen of a claim. In Canada, a liberal Member of Parliament recently said that C-38 – the same-sex marriage bill now being debated – cannot protect religious institutions and texts. Church pastors, school teachers and magistrates have all been the victims of fines, firings, suspensions or other punishments for opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage. There are no guarantees that this will not happen in Arizona if homosexual marriage becomes legal. There is every reason to believe that a government permitting homosexual marriages would oppose traditional values opposed to homosexuality. Either a rogue judge or simple majorities of 16-14 in the Arizona Senate and 31-29 in the Arizona House of Representatives, coupled with a Democratic governor, could impose homosexual marriage on the state – along with harsh penalties for churches and others in opposition. This is a slippery slope argument to be wary of. There are at least 1,049 protections, benefits and responsibilities extended to married couples under federal law. This is the AHRF’s No. 1 point of argument and it gets to the crux of the issue. Once again, the activists make it clear that they have their sights set on the hundreds of laws accompanying marriage, to claim unearned benefits for their own. The use of public resources in regard to marriage is far more wisely directed to strengthening heterosexual marriages and the positive impact they provide for communities and governments. That's 0-for10, Arizona Human Rights Fund. People of Arizona, you benefit more than you know from the standard of heterosexual marriage. Get out there and support Protect Marriage Arizona. Protect your communities and your government resources.
Dennis Durband is publisher and editor of The Arizona Conservative,
is also a freelance writer and webmaster and a longtime journalist. He
is willing to speak at The Humanist Public University at Tucson for a
slice of strawberry pie, after the address rather than a whipped cream
pie like that "given" to Ann Coulter. Home |News |State Briefs |Editorials|Letters |Key Legislation |Privacy Policy |Contact Us
|
| ||
