Difference between revisions of "Same-sex marriage"

Revision as of 15:49, October 24, 2007

In regards to homosexuality and marriage, the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of homosexual relationships.

The rationale goes like this:

• Marriage is good.
• No one can criticize what is good.
• A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
• Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).

Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an assault charge.

Attempts to refer to civil unions as "marriage", or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions.

It is also referred to as "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "marriage" is a misnomer, because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,^[1] a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation marks around the word marriage, to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."^[2]

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by gay rights activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "civil unions" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

Background

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. ^[3] In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.^[4]

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.^[5]

Issues

James Dobson of Focus on the Family suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:

...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.^[6]

The Defend Marriage organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."^[7] According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.^[8]

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. ^[9]

Homosexual domestic violence

For more information please see: Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence

A particularly worrisome factor among gay rights activists is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse. Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships." This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are at least as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."

83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. ^[10] One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Morality cannot be legislated.

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships.

See also

• Intimate Partner Violence

Reference