Why is Gay Marriage Progressing Across the Globe?

Diane Robertson

Legalized same-sex marriage is making progress around the globe.  Since the New Year, New Zealand, France, and Uruguay have legalized gay marriage. Great Britain is currently working on a law that would legalize gay marriage, and marriage is on trial in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nations in the world that have legalized gay marriage are as follows:

The Netherlands 2001

Belgium 2003

Spain 2005

Canada 2005

South Africa 2005

Norway 2009

Sweden 2009

Portugal 2010

Iceland 2010

Argentina 2010

Denmark 2012

New Zealand 2013

France 2013

Uruguay 2013

1/5^th of states in the US  as of April 2013

And one state and Mexico City in Mexico

Just one year ago, only six states in the US had legalized same sex marriage and none of those states had voted to legalize it. Now there are 10 states. Washington, Maryland, and Maine made history last fall by obtaining a majority vote of the people to legalize gay marriage in their states. Rhode Island became the 10^th state this April as the State Governor signed a law that easily passed the state legislature.  The tide has turned from a year ago.  The tide began turning more than 50 years ago.

From a purely secular standpoint, traditional marriage is hard to defend against the moving tide. The main secular argument in favor of traditional marriage is: marriage is a conjugal union between two biologically compatible people that would produce offspring and raise the next generation responsibly. Governments had an interest in this union because it produced a healthy new generation. People got married to form a new family—to produce children.

The rise of birth control use and the sexual revolution in the Western world began changing the connection between sex and children, and ultimately between marriage and families.  No longer does the general population get married to form a new family; the general population gets married to legalize an emotional attachment. Commitment is still involved, but not all couples consider that commitment permanent.

The original argument in favor of birth control was very convincing. If married women could reduce the number of unwanted births, poverty would end.

And then what happened? Pregnancy was removed from the sexual act. Having sex with no consequences became the new powerful idea. Single people wanted on board too. Free love, free sex, and no consequences became the talk of the day in the 1960’s.

When pregnancy no longer had to be a consequence of sex, the idea of getting married to have sex disconnected in the minds of the people. Men and women quit feeling the need to get married to have children.  Births to single mother’s sky rocketed.  Abortion became legal. Couples began co-habitating and forming families without bonds. With so many people engaging in sex before marriage, it seemed unreasonable to ask them to give up the idea of free sex after marriage. Divorce rates sky rocketed.  Marriage broke.

It is hard to fight for something already broken. Most couples who get married, do so with the idea that if in a couple of years they do not like this arrangement, they can move on. While many couples want children, most marriages are based on emotional attachment.

Isn’t it discrimination to limit committed emotional attachments to couples of the opposite gender?  Those who believe marriage is just an emotional attachment do.

How can supporters of traditional marriage argue against gay marriage? Gay marriage is currently a social experiment. There isn’t much data on the effects of gay marriage on child rearing and society in general. However, there is a lot of data on problems fatherlessness causes children. Fortunately, most women have not abandoned their children and there isn’t much data on problems motherlessness causes children. If the problems caused by fathers abandoning children can be used as an indicator for what motherlessness will do to children, we should start building more jails now.

Gay marriage doesn’t just break marriage in the way free heterosexual practices broke marriage. Gay marriage changes the laws. In the countries and states where gay marriage has been legal for some time, laws have changed from the support of religious and conscientious freedom to the support of sexual freedom. Gay marriage laws punish free speech and conscientious religious objections.

If the western world wants to maintain the conscience, religious and speech freedoms that have allowed them to prosper for hundreds of years, individuals need to change.  Adults need to remember that marriage is really about forming a new biological family and that remaining faithful in your marriage is important to health, happiness, and freedom.  Parents need to teach those values to their children. Things can still turn around in favor of man and woman marriage if men and women break away from the ideas brought by the sexual revolution and once more encourage abstinence before marriage and complete fidelity afterwards.

Gay Marriage: What’s Happening?

Diane Robertson

The last few years I have been concerned about the changes society will see from legalized gay marriage. After researching court cases, judicial rulings, and laws made as a result of legalizing gay marriage, I concluded that gay marriage has a chilling effect on free speech and is destructive to freedom of religion.

Canada

Gay marriage became legal in Canada in 2005. This week, the Supreme Court in Canada released a unanimous decision that strikes a monumental blow against freedom of speech and religion confirming my fears about legalizing gay marriage.

This week’s ruling in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott reads:

“A prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression targeting sexual behaviour. Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself. If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.”

In other words, the religious view that homosexuality is a sin will legally be considered hate speech in Canada, especially if the Canadian Human Rights Commission believes that the speech consists of extreme manifestations of emotions described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not enshrined in the Canadian constitution like they are in the United States.

England

This week, clause one of the same sex marriage bill passed committee by 13 to 4.  It is being considered by the Public Bills Committee in the House of Commons.

There are 18 clauses in total. Clause one “makes it lawful for same sex couples to marry”.

France

About two weeks ago, France’s lower house of parliament approved a bill that would legalize gay marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children. President François Hollande’s Socialists pushed the measure through the national assembly, carrying a vote by 329 to 229. The bill now goes to the senate, which is also controlled by the Socialists and their allies. Thousands of French citizens have marched in protest of gay marriage.

United States

In four more weeks, The Supreme Court of the United States will hear two gay marriage cases: DOMA and California’s Proposition 8.

This week, The Obama Administration filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court asking the court to strike down DOMA and Proposition 8.

In the DOMA brief, the administration placed access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits and tax breaks – as well as its belief that homosexuals deserve a special place as an underprivileged minority group – at the heart of its legal argument. The brief says, “Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power.”

In the Proposition 8 Brief, the Obama administration declares that homosexual’s deserve the “full benefits” and “social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage”. The brief states that “protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage” in public schools  is “not a permissible interest insofar as it rests on a moral judgment about gay and lesbian people,” and that, “The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents.”

Both amicus briefs urge the Supreme Court to review the cases under “heightened scrutiny”.

While citing many studies about homosexual families, these briefs ignore the most recent research on homosexual parenting done by Mark Regnerus. His study, published in the journal Social Science Research last July, found that children raised in a family with married heterosexual parents were far less likely to suffer traumatic life events than those raised by homosexuals.

Certainly, with the President of the United States of America backing their cause, gay and lesbian people, while a minority of the population, enjoy unprecedented political power around the world.

The Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers have asked the people to pray for marriage before the cases are heard at the Supreme Court of the United States. Defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is not just defending marriage. It is defending freedom.

Reader Poll: “J.C. Penney stock has dropped dramatically the last six months. Is it directly related to repercussions from their overt pro-gay advocacy or simply because of ineffective business practices?”

Here’s the question we asked UFI readers:

“J.C. Penney stock has dropped dramatically the last six months.  Is it directly related to repercussions from their overt pro-gay advocacy or simply because of ineffective business practices?”

Here’s how readers responded:

51 Percent        Largely repercussions from gay advocacy

 8 percent          Ineffective business practices

39 Percent        Probably both

 2 percent          Have no Idea

This poll question, asked prior to Wednesday’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” yields some interesting results.  Based on the large turnout on Wednesday to support Chick-fil-A, it would appear that there are very large numbers of people who are willing to spend money to support traditional marriage.  Perhaps the flip side is that they would be unwilling to spend money to support a business who doesn’t share their values.

We would tend to agree that it is probably a combination of both poor business practices and not a small amount of negative repercussion from the business becoming involved in gay advocacy.

Broken Laws…Broken Hearts

Rachel Allison

What a pounding the time-honored institution of marriage is getting these days.  We could blame the gay movement, and have justification for doing so.  But there have been some high-profile reminders these last few days of just how far the disregard for marriage vows and personal integrity have plunged.

If only those caught up with the excitement of the lustful moment could fast forward to see the heartbreak and humiliation that always accompany such selfish and reckless lack of personal responsibility…Surely the decision would be to flee the temptation and think more seriously about the ramifications of infidelity.

On May 8 North Carolina voters are going to the polls to vote for or against Amendment One, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in their state.  In the next seven days we’ll read and hear a lot about this amendment and its potentially harmful impact, legal and otherwise.  We who strongly advocate marriage between one man and one woman will be listening and watching all the news coming from North Carolina.

Have we been as attentive over the past seven days as the damning testimony in the John Edward’s trial has come to light? We are quick to cry “foul” and promote legislation to stop homosexuals and, in our minds, their disregard for the sanctity of marriage.  But where is the vocal outrage when infidelity between a husband and wife undermines the sacredness of the institution we hold dear.

We have heard repeatedly the moral arguments against homosexuality, including the label of “abomination.” Doesn’t infidelity deserve such a label?

I wonder what ridicule and contempt a legislator would receive if he tried to introduce a bill that would ban betrayal, disloyalty, lies, selfishness and deceit?

Most don’t want to have government that deeply involved in legislating our behaviors. And I agree.

What I don’t agree with is the banning of the Ten Commandments that remind us of how we can live lives free from selfishness and misplaced priorities. When the government chooses to ban the Ten Commandments, it then has to deal with legislation that tries to pick up the pieces of broken lives. It has become a vicious cycle that will get larger and more destructive as the values that our forefathers believed in become more and more “outdated.”

Seriously…look around at the real heartbreak and broken lives all around us.  How many are a result of the breaking of one or more of the Ten Commandments? You can dismiss them if you want…but seriously…

 

 

There is No Substitute for Traditional Marriage

Rachel Allison

Five years ago one of my closest friends chose a lesbian life-style.  Prior to her decision she was devoted to her church and her faith.  I know she doesn’t attend church services any more, but I hope she continues to stay close to God through sincere and heart-felt prayer. She says she’s happy.  I don’t doubt her.

This dear friend has been in my thoughts these past few days because of a conversation I had last week with a heterosexual woman who advocates for Christian Gays and Lesbians.  Our conversation was at her request.  She wants us at United Families International to change our stance on same-sex marriage.  After a conversation that lasted close to three hours, my parting words to her were these,  “because we care for these people, we cannot change our stance. We cannot support a life-style that is self-destructive.”

This advocate of the gay/lesbian society is a good woman with a big heart.  Her intentions are admirable, as are those who are determined to have God in their lives no matter what their life style choice. Even so there are numerous studies on this issue, and all data points to traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, to be the ideal for not only those involved, but for society.

One study that supports traditional marriage, was conducted in 1935 by a renowned anthropologist, Joseph Daniel Unwin who tried to prove the opposite: “that  marriage was irrelevant and even a harmful institution.”  He studied some 80+ civilizations and the evidence proved that only man/woman marriage with absolute monogamy leads to the cultural prosperity of a society.  Anything else, degrades society….and the effects of the degradation emerge within the third generation. To read more go “here.”

Further, studies show that couples that are abstinent until marriage have a fidelity rate of 95% +.  Domestic same-sex partners have a fidelity rate of zero to 5%.

I admire people who are loving and accepting of friends and family who are gay. Our opinions about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman should never lead us to mistreat or malign others.  In fact, religious beliefs dictate understanding and compassion.  But we can never, in the process of showing understanding and compassion, lose sight of  the fact that the lives of  children and and the long-term stability of society are predicated upon faithful marriage between men and women.

For studies and research on sexual orientation issues go here.

Coming soon to your town: Domestic Partner Registries

By Carol Soelberg

In cities and counties across the country we are hearing of efforts being made to implement domestic partnership registries as a means to “satisfy the needs” of homosexual couples who can not be legally married.  While these communities are committed to families and children, many individuals don’t realize that such a registry is not only unnecessary, but has the unintended consequence of undermining marriage and family.

“Domestic partner registries” have the legal effect of creating an imitation marriage status for persons who are unwilling to marry or who are ineligible to marry under state law. It gives some legal recognition to domestic partnerships and cohabitation of the same or opposite sex.  It sends a message that alternative relationships are good for society.  There is a wealth of empirical data and studies that show that domestic partnerships and cohabitation are relationships that are less stable and more burdensome on society in matters of child welfare, health care, drugs and alcohol, poverty, domestic violence and crime.

Proponents of these registries rely heavily on the argument that there is a problem with hospital visitation rights for unmarried couples.  We empathize with these couples’ concerns and their desire for visitation rights, and are glad to report that the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act passed in 1997  requires hospitals to recognize visitation and surrogate decision-making designations contained in advanced health-care directives.  In the absence of such a directive, the statute requires hospitals to recognize “an individual in a long-term relationship with the patient…with a commitment similar to a spouse.”

This federal provision is especially suitable for meeting all hospital-related needs of unmarried couples whether heterosexual or same-sex.  If hospitals are not complying with this law the solution is in requiring compliance with the existing law—not creating a new and unnecessary ordinance.

If indeed the proposed ordinance is about protecting visitation rights, I hardly think individuals in any type of relationship would choose to go to city hall, fill out paper work for a domestic partner registry and pay the necessary fees when they could go the admitting area of any hospital and for free obtain a Medical Power of Attorney form.  The hospitals will also notarize the form for free if you are planning to be a patient there and some will notarize for free even if you’re not.  A notarized Medical Power of Attorney in your possession is a more reliable instrument, than a name on a registry down at city hall.

The simplicity of this solution—already in place—leaves one to wonder if there are other motives involved in the pursuit of these registries.   Could this be a “bock-door” approach to procuring civil unions and eventually legalizing same-sex marriage?

Strong traditional marriage benefits individuals and society as a whole:   economically, physically, and emotionally; something that alternative relationships cannot match.  I urge all citizens to be aware of efforts being made in your community to obtain such an ordinance. Please encourage members of your City council to devote time and energy to developing policies that are truly necessary AND that support, rather than undermine, marriage.

For information on the impact of cohabiting relationships (“living together”) on both children and adults, go here

For information on the impact of  same-sex behavior and relationships, go here.

Gary and Tony Have a Baby: CNN’s New Propaganda Piece

It takes a lot of money for two homosexual men to buy…oh excuse me…have a baby–$160,000 to be exact according to a CNN hour-long “documentary” piece that aired last week.   First you have to purchase a human egg from a donor (14 eggs actually), then you have to use sperm from one of men, then you have to pay for in vitro fertilization, then you have to “rent” some woman’s womb, and finally pay for all of the expenses of delivery.  Plunk $160K on the table, please.  Following Mother Nature’s rules is much simpler and costs a fraction.

CNN is most interested in promoting the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, however.  With host Soledad O’Brien lobbing softball questions and never questioning the ethics of deliberately stripping the child of a mother or challenging the gay couple when they expressed fear that a heterosexual might harm the baby because of homophobia.  Much of the program was devoted to talking about the “feel good” nonsense that all children need is love—in an attempt to downplay many decade’s worth of empirical data that show the critical importance of both a father and a mother in the life of a child.

CNN is so vested in pushing forward the homosexual agenda that they even produced a Parent/Teacher Discussion Guide.  Yes, let’s make sure that children are indoctrinated at school too.

The CNN trailer calls Gary and Tony Have a Baby a “Story of America.”  It seems to us that two men “having a baby” more resembles a fairytale.

Go here to see the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giqkdinaiWs

Homosexual Men in the Headlines: The Age Gap

Two homosexual couples have made headlines recently. One is reported to be the first homosexual couple to be married in China; the other is two Italian men that have started a hunger strike in Italy, hoping to bring homosexual marriage to the attention of the Italian government.

Besides becoming widely known, these couples have something else in common—a huge age gap.

The couple in China is a 46-year-old man matched with a 27-year-old man. The Italian couple: 38 and 22.

In both cases, one of the men is almost twice the age of his partner.

There may be an explanation for this, as reported by Julie Harren, Ph.D.,

“A common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity.

…For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the initial source of developing a secure gender identity…

When the child reaches the age of five, he begins to face another task, that is, to begin to attach to same-sex peers…Through the relationships he forms with other boys, he continues to gain a sense of masculinity, discovering more about others boys and therefore more about himself as a boy.

Eventually, after many years of bonding with members of the same sex, the boy enters puberty. At this time he begins to turn his attention to the opposite sex…

Conversely, for the child who will develop a homosexual orientation, this process does not happen…Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn’t have a father or a father figure, or he doesn’t have a father who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming.”

Harren concedes, “Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers and yet do not develop a homosexual orientation…Human development is very complex…”

Family relationships are not the only indicator, but they do play a crucial role in gender identification. Statistics say so.

A study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, done to determine the influence of family factors on sexual-orientation development.

It was done on a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark — a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships — was the first country to recognize same-sex unions. The researchers assessed detailed marriage records for all Danish-born men and women marrying a same-sex partner from the years 1989 through 2001.

The study shows:

• “The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage…homosexual [”marriage”] rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence.”

• “Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to [”marry”] homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages.”

• “Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual [”marriage”] than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years.”

• Men who [”marry”] homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships — particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

• Men and women with “unknown fathers” were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

• Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence “had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father’s death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage.“

Such extreme differences in age makes me wonder. Maybe these two young men are in relationships with older men in hopes to find some sort of father figures in their lives, or maybe to find their own gender identity.

The facts say to me, “it’s a possibility.”

Prop. 8 Lawyer to be Guest on Radio Show

William Duncan, a lawyer involved in the Proposition 8 trial, will be a guest on the talk radio show Voice of the Nation, next Thursday at 3 pm (MDT). Please join us as we discuss the arguments presented in the final week of the case as well as Duncan’s inside view of the trial.

Voice of the Nation is your pro-family radio show that brings people on the front line of the battle, straight to you.

Prop 8 Defense Relieved, for Now

The Supreme Court has entered an interim order that will bar real-time streaming of the Prop 8 trial to other federal courthouses and YouTube. The order will last until Wednesday. Till then, the Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not to make the ban permanent.

This is assuaging news for pro-family litigants who fear the potential persecution that may come from the trial.

Hak-Shing William Tam, who played a crucial role in qualifying Proposition 8 for ballot in 2009 and is one of the official litigants that planned on defending Proposition 8, has already asked to be removed from the case.

“In the past I have received threats on my life,” Tam said. “(I) had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8.” He continued, “Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.”

Tam’s request to leave the trial did not mention the judge’s recent decision to broadcast the trial. But certainly it wouldn’t help with the prospects of persecution.