Editorial: Tribune Shows Bias, Ignorance on PMA

EDITORIAL

East Valley Tribune Shows Ignorance, Bias Toward Marriage Initiative

May 21, 2005

The East Valley Tribune can use neither history nor social science research in defense of its May 19 editorial, “Aim of anti-civil union drive is to punish, not protect.” Contrary to what the Tribune says, the amendment will greatly benefit the communities of Arizona.

The Tribune claims it “has been argued credibly that the civil rights of gays and unmarried adult members of a household can be protected without changing the legal definition of marriage.” Argued by whom? Certainly not by social scientists. Civil unions -- a counterfeit of marriage merely using another name -- are intended to serve as a stepping stone to wear down resistance to same-sex marriage. Civil unions are a direct threat to marriage and the well being of children.

The Tribune argues for Vermont-style civil unions without recognizing that the values of Arizonans and Vermonters are not synonymous.

The cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale bestow domestic partner benefits on tiny percentages of their work forces. Where is the groundswell for civil unions and domestic partner benefits? Homosexual marriage is not legal in Arizona, and the Protect Marriage Amendment (PMA) initiative will not revoke anyone’s rights.

Rather, the amendment will stop judicial activists from strong-arming radical marriage changes on the people.

As a credible news source, The Tribune editorial board ought to recognize the ongoing global attack on marriage. Without substantiation, the Tribune cites “a way of life deemed sinful by accusers whose own lives are affected not a whit by it.” PMA leaders, who are more concerned with the growing threat of judicial activism than with citizens’ personal choices, argue for the preservation of a healthy social order and ask the people to make the determination. The Tribune brought up the topic of sin.

Does the democratic process threaten the Tribune’s own biases on this topic? Later on, this editorial will document the negative affects of domestic partner benefits, civil unions and cohabitation -- without going near the topic of sin.

The divorce rate is staggering, and the institution of marriage “could use some strengthening,” the Tribune argues. Indeed, Arizona’s no-fault divorce laws render marriages too easily disposable. Earlier this year, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill to strengthen marriage, but Governor Janet Napolitano unwisely vetoed it. The Tribune identifies the wrong solution to the destruction of marriage. The governor needs to defend her position. Same-sex marriage/civil unions as a solution for divorce may be a liberal talking point, but in actuality cannot do anything of the sort.

It is not the intention of PMA to force homosexuals to go straight, and it is disingenuous of the Tribune to make such a hysterical claim. Who are the intolerant ones in the debate? The amendment leaders have vowed to debate with civility. Yet within the first week of the initiative drive, the media and homosexual activists are recklessly engaged in name-calling and false, wild accusations. Is this the level of journalism that passes in major metro newspapers? One would expect as much from a college or high school publication.

The Tribune is also mistaken in alleging that PMA will “impose a needless and onerous hardship on domestic partners.” This marriage amendment will do no such thing. Domestic partner benefits have never been regarded a universal right and are the exception rather than the rule in Arizona. It is marriage between a man and a woman that brings the most benefits to communities. Counterfeit living arrangements, despite the Tribune’s false claim, do not make households more secure and stable.

Social science research indicates that counterfeit living arrangements come with a litany of social ills. Why would government reward those at the expense of marriage with its clear benefits?

Cohabitation is a highly unstable proposition for people of either gender, tethered to high social price tags for government. It is incumbent upon governments and societies to educate people about the negative consequences acquired outside the bonds of strong, stable marriages.

Government has no obligation to validate domestic partnerships by providing institutionalized benefits because these relationships do not provide the same intrinsic value to society that marriage does.

Governments extending benefits to domestic partnerships in effect subsidize the formation of fragile family forms and contribute to increased risks of economic hardship and violence against women and children. Governments have the obligation and the right to promote what is best for society, not to hand out benefits just because particular parties demand them.

Marriage carries with it the best prospects for producing superior personal, familial and societal results. Marriage has indisputable economic, physical, emotional and psychological benefits for men and women and their children that alternative relationships simply cannot match. The weakened state of marriage today is not a call to further dismantle it, but rather a call to strengthen and protect traditional marriage.

Homosexual relationships and cohabiting relationships last just 18 months on average, according to social science research. But let’s look what can happen in that short amount of time.

The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire found that domestic partners are much more violent than married couples, that the overall rates of violence among cohabiting couples was double that of married couples, and severe violence was five times as high for cohabitating couples. U.S. and Canadian studies both showed that women in cohabiting relationships are nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than are women in marital relationships. Rates for serious abuse of children are lowest in the intact family, but 20 times higher in cohabiting biological parent families, and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

Children who live in cohabiting unions with a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence than are children living with married biological parents. These children are subject to significantly higher rates of emotional and behavioral problems and live in households that experience higher rates of poverty. The least safe of all environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child's biological father.

The academic performances of children who live in the homes of domestic partners are poorer than those of children living with their married biological parents. Children whose parents are married are healthier, have higher educational attainment, and are less likely to be on welfare, involved in crimes or in drugs.

More than 50 percent of cohabiting couples break up within five years of having a child; only 8 percent of married couples split after a child. A survey taken in 1999 showed that 86 percent of people worldwide agreed that “[a]ll things being equal, it is better for children to be raised in a household that has a married mother and father.”

Researchers at UCLA found that marriages preceded by cohabitation were more prone to problems like drug and alcohol use, more permissive sexual relationships, and an abhorrence of dependence than were relationships not preceded by cohabitation. Female partners of unfaithful men are at great risk for sexually transmitted disease because of the behavior of their male partners. Of all sexually active people, married couples who are sexually faithful to one another experience the most physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction with their sex lives. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction and poorer relationships with their parents.

In 2001, nearly 30,000 incidents of violence were perpetrated against homosexuals by their own partners. This represents 95 percent of the violent acts committed against homosexuals in the U.S. that year. The incidence was greater among lesbian partners than among male homosexual partners.

Twenty-nine percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been subjected to sexual molestation by a homosexual parent. Just 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents had suffered the same abuse. In other words, a child living with homosexual parents has a risk 46 times higher of being sexually molested than a child living with heterosexual parents.

Voters will do well to support the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative. They will take action to protect and defend the highly valuable institution of marriage as it has long been known. To reject this initiative would leave Arizona families -- and particularly children -- vulnerable to harmful social engineering that does not have anyone’s best interests in mind.

Homosexual marriage is legal in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. This has resulted in a declining number of marriages and a resulting increase in illegitimate births. Liberalizing marriage law in Scandinavia has served the message that marriage as an institution is outdated and that practically any family forms -- including out-of-wedlock parenthood -- are acceptable.

The journal AIDS points out that in the Netherlands, where homosexual “marriage" has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. Partnered homosexuals have "outside" lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates.

Whether it is called homosexual marriage or a civil union, these relationships have harmful consequences. They:

• Weaken the family by creating a counterfeit variety of marriage.

• Entice children to experiment with homosexuality. This puts more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: "The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," No. 15, 1991.)

• Put more children at risk as adoption agencies decline to favor married homes and place more children in motherless or fatherless households.

Protect Marriage Arizona can help safeguard against the decline of the family and marriage in our state, while protecting men, women and children -- saving the state untold resources. The edgy East Valley Tribune editorial board will note that no religious arguments were used in this editorial.