|
| ||||
|
MARRIAGE Questions & Answers Surrounding Marriage and Homosexuality Q -- Is same-sex "marriage' a civil right, akin to inter-racial marriage? A -- No. Civil rights are not based on behaviors. The inter-racial marriage ban, fortunately lifted, was strictly about race, not gender. The issue was not whether homosexuals could marry each other. Q -- Is homosexuality deserving of a "protected class" of citizens, in the eyes of the law? A -- No. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, declared: "We find that sexual orientation is neither a suspect or quasi-suspect class." The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth District also said homosexual persons do not constitute a "suspect" classification. Q -- Does the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide a right to same-sex "marriage"? A -- Only by the widest stretches of the imagination. The Framers of the Amendment never believed their language would be so abused as it is in the rationalization of same-sex "marriage" or abortion. To presume that the 14th does make such allowances, then one can apply situational ethics to attempt to justify anything that is currently illegal. This would make it virtually impossible to have a civil and stable society. Q -- Is marriage defined as one man and one woman a matter of forcing religion into law? A -- No. Laws and constitutions reflect the will of the people. Their support for one man/one woman marriage is far broader than religion. In fact, it transcends political, social, racial, religious and demographic categories of Americans. Q -- Do pressure groups, such as Equality Arizona, have the best interests in mind for homosexuals by advocating for radical changes in law? A -- No. It would be far better for such groups to educate their members on the vast range of problems besetting people practicing behavior, rather than enabling people who suffer from a vast array of problems. Q -- Is opposition to the homosexual agenda an example of "hate" or "homophobia"? A -- No. It's based on wanting what is truly best for society and for homosexuals. It is also a matter of opposing pressure groups pushing for radical overhaul of the social order, including the very re-definition of marriage into something it is not intended to be. Q -- Are homosexual couples just like other people? A -- No, and preferring a life of libertine sex and open relationships, many do not want to be viewed as such. This is clearly evident from the outrageous behavior and indecent public exposure evident in homosexual pride parades. There is no way that two persons of the same gender can provide the full range of developmental needs to boys and girls. Nor can they provide the stability and longevity in their relationships that are conducive to child raising, or suitable for adoption. Q -- Can people switch from homosexuality to heterosexuality? A -- Yes. It's happening with thousands of people in virtually every state. To suggest otherwise is to defy reality ... or accepting the spin of the pressure groups. Q -- What percentage of the population is homosexual? A -- Approximately 1-3 percent. However, the sexual behavior of some of these people is not fluid, but rather inconsistent. A large percentage of people who claim to be homosexual have had heterosexual relationships during their lifetimes. Without a shred of statistical data to back it up, some organizations and leftist media outlets falsely claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. It's never been close to that figure. Q -- Is homosexuality genetic? A -- No. The Human Genome Project proved it is not. No research has determined any genetic cause. Q -- Does the state have a compelling interest in marriage as the union of one man and one woman? A -- Yes, according to current law in several states. As well as common sense. Married heterosexual men and women engage in far fewer risky behaviors than do homosexual adults -- such as domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse. Heterosexual adults live longer and more stable lives and make better and more dependable employees and citizens. |
Quotes
Stanley Kurtz:
"Once again, Sweden is showing us a possible future. The idea that we can and should abolish marriage and recognize multi-partner unions has its advocates in America, though they may seem too few to be bothered with. We ought not, however, mistake their chances for long-term success. Those radical advocates recognize something that even the moderate proponents of gay marriage overlook or deny: gay marriage changes the way that young people see and understand their social world. The slope from gay marriage to polyamory and ultimately to no marriage is not slippery by accident, but by design." Gene Edward Veith:
"Civil unions would become a sort of 'marriage lite.' You could
enter into them and take advantage of the legal benefits, but then
leave them whenever you wanted. No messy divorces. No marital property
laws. No alimony payments. No child support. All the benefits of
marriage without any of the hassle. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University professor: "Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer. Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."
| |||
.JPG)