Is the debate really about Civil Rights?

I received a comment on my last post saying that this whole marriage debate is not about approval, but about civil rights. I posted the following reply:

My view is that marriage is not a civil right, it is a definition. and the current, most accepted definition is the union between a man and a woman. This debate is about changing that definition, and along with changing it, validating that all unions are the same, when in fact, they’re not.

Like the author in my previous post states, “To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.”

Should we really do that? What is wrong with calling a same-sex union something other than marriage?

In California civil unions and marriage are equal under the law. That fact invalidates any claim that this whole debate is over “civil rights”. Obviously, the gay rights movement is after something beyond civil rights that the title of a civil union cannot give them, and that is “moral equity”.

From Troy Rockwood, a commenter on http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/an-analogy/:

“There are two kinds of equal… First is equal under the law. That means that you have the same rights and responsibilities from the law’s point of view. In California, civil unions and marriage are equal under the law. They have different names but the same rights are given to both groups. You can read the California code to be convinced of this (although I don’t think it’s really a contested point.)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

The second type of equal is the idea that both things are of equal value. Here is where there is disagreement and why many are against having it taught in schools, for instance. This is NOT based on beliefs or faith, it’s based on facts. This isn’t saying that same sex couples are not better because homosexuality is a sin, it’s saying that same sex couples are not better because they result in outcomes that EVERYONE can agree are negative. I believe that most people who voted for prop 8 voted because they don’t believe that same sex unions and marriage have equal value and that teaching that they do would be dishonest to our children. Here are some links to data that support the idea that they are not of equal value:

Research shows that contributions from both a mother and a father are significant in the development of children:
http://www.alabamapolicy.org/pdf/currentfamilystructure.pdf
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2007.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/Do_Moms_Dads_Matter.pdf

Same sex relationships are shorter term than traditional marriages between a man and a wife.
The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years:
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/pdfhandler.00002030-200305020-00012.pdf
29% of relationships last more than 7 years:
http://glcensus.org/press/02052004.html
The average homosexual relationship in the US lasts only two to three years:
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Same sex relationships are much more prone to domestic violence
Violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Same sex relationships are more likely to prematurely end in death of one or both partners due to the very high rate of diseases such as AIDS (200 times more likely):
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/EpiUpdate/EpiUpdArchive/2007/default.asp

Homosexuals are 10-25 times more likely to be child molesters:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Although same sex unions are equal under the law, they do not have equal value. They are plagued with these problems and it would be dishonest to our children to teach them that they are of equal value because unfortunately they are not.”

Right on the Nail–Prop 8 is not discrimination

I think Thomas Sowell (a black man) hits this issue right on the nail:

 ”The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. “

“Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.”

“While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars. But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else. “

 ”The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry…The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined.”

“Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing— riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination. “

“Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.”

“Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people’s approval.”

You can read the article in full here.

More examples of gay marriage repercussions in Massachusetts

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

Read More Here:
What Same-Sex Marriage has done to Massachusetts

Another piece of proof

Here is yet another example IN CALIFORNIA! of public schools affected by same-sex marriage legislation.

Same-sex marriage in California Schools.

An elementary school near Sacramento is celebrating “Coming Out Day”, and didn’t even notify parents.

Recommended Reading

I found a link to this blog on one of my commenter’s websites (thanks for the post!). This is one of the best, most well-organized posts on this issue with an extensive number of links to back up every single statement. Check it out! Proposition 8 in California.

Another commenter posted her blog. Read her analogy comparing the marriage issue to apples and bananas:

“For a changing society, we need NEW TERMS to describe the types of relationships people have the free choice to form – not new laws that will put us all in speech & religious bondage.”

Thanks for articulating that point. I’m not even going to try to say it better than that. For more information on how calling a banana an apple doesn’t make it an apple, read Experiment Here.

Religious Endorsement on Prop 8

The call to endorse same-sex marriage is an attack on religion. Religious leaders from all walks of faith are encouraging members to vote yes on proposition 8.

The California Catholic Conference:
…took a stance on prop 8 by declaring that marriage is “an ancient, yet modern, human institution which pre-exists both Church and government“. Who can really redefine an institution that existed before any other? Their official declaration on proposition 8 is worth reading.

LDS leaders published the following on their website:
“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.” Read the full article here for the LDS church stance on marriage.

Adventists speak out on prop 8:
“Same sex couples already enjoy legal rights of domestic partnership, etc. We do not need to surrender the definition of “marriage” to vindicate these relationships.” For more reasons to support proposition 8, visit their website.

Official Jewish Orthodox Union Statement:
“…Religious institutions and people face charges of bigotry and could be denied government funding and more if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Just as we condemn discrimination against the gay community, we ask that the same tolerance be shown towards those with sincerely held religious beliefs…” More from this statement here.

Real Examples of the Consequences of Legalized Same-Sex Marriage

This is a great article featuring real cases of Courts ruling against organizations on the basis that they discriminated against same-sex couples even though they were exercising their religious rights. When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash We need Prop 8!

What is tolerance?

Tolerance is showing love and compassion towards those who you disagree with. NOT accepting the behavior or beliefs of those people. There is a HUGE difference. In today’s society the opposition to Prop 8 is claiming Prop 8 supporters are intolerant because we will not endorse their behavior.

Who is really being intolerant on this issue? Check out this video and decide: Prop 8 Tolerance on UTube

Legalizing same-sex marriage in California WILL affect public schools. It already is.

Here is an article I mentioned in a previous post that reports on a field trip a first grade class took last week (Friday, Oct 10th) to their lesbian teacher’s wedding.

I actually found one of the most interesting things on the website to be the comments from readers. Here are a few of my favorites:

After viewing the endless list of outrageous comments from opponents of prop 8 describing proponents as being intolerant and hateful (“prop hate supporters”) this reader stated:

hangtownsharky
10/11/2008 6:40:21 AM

So would everyone be as happy about this story if the children were attending a public event like a Church service or a political event like a Yes on Prop 8 rally? It’s funny how everyone is supposed to be tolerant…unless it comes to being tolerant of those with a Judeo-Christian belief or a traditional family lifestyle. I must ask where are we going and why do I feel like we’re all in this big handbasket?

I agree. Tolerance goes both ways. But the other side is just so fiercely angry and hostile. We don’t force prayer and God in schools, how is teaching about gay marriage any different when it goes against the religious beliefs of most Americans? Again, doesn’t this need to go both ways?

Here is an intriguing comment on the article from a gay marriage supporter:

10/11/2008 6:54:11 AM
statewide1

Really? Do you guys understand statewide politics? This is exactly what scares undecided voters and parents, who otherwise might be with you. I can’t believe this occurred with school kids, first graders even and the rose petals, how stupid are you guys, all of you? (And why is Gavin still doing weddings, do you not have a strong political aide?) The norms established by mainstream media in Bay Area are not indicative of the rest of your state. 24 days out and this school fieldtrip probably just cost the election. don’t open school kids to this issue its a loser for gay marriage advocates. Arrogance is all I can chalk this up to, and get ready to sit around the day after the election and ask who handed this moment to Yes on 8…because they will shove this down the throat of anyone who will listen the next three weeks, you self-sabotaging, idiots. you guys are idiots….and yes I know something about statewide politics, you’d be surprised, socal and central valley are different.

Even the no on prop 8 commenters know what a disaster this is for their campaign. Why? because they know that the majority of Californians don’t want the gay agenda pushed on their children in public schools. If we don’t pass prop 8, public schools will be affected. This is proof and they know it.

And one last comment from a reader (who doesn’t know that gay couples already receive all of the benefits of married couples):

boorad
10/15/2008 8:03:47 AM

The answer to the question is something at least the liberal will not like. Grant civil unions or whatever wording you want to gay couples that allow them to receive the benefits of married people. It saves face for everyone and is a win win compromise. But people like Buzz have to have the wording exactly the same, getting the rights are not enough, liberals have to make sure to take as many strikes against one religion, Christianity, that they can. Most Christians could really care less unless the issue is pushed, like here in California, then it becomes a rally point for folks of the religion. Be happy if you are gay and live in this country, because countries like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia do not recognize the concept of a gay couple, they just stone them to death or hang them. This issue is down to pneumonics, but giving someone the equality they want without using the word marriage is not enough. That will make this issue fail

As you’ve heard lots of times before, Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gays and lesbians or their lifestyle. It is a defense to protect marriage. Most people don’t care what the gay community does in their private lives. Most people just don’t want that lifestyle forced upon them–and attacking marriage is crossing that line.

All 4 Presidential and VP Candidates support Prop 8 and Traditional Marriage

During the VP Presidential debate, Americans learned that all 4 candidates support Proposition 8 and Traditional Marriage. Here are portions of the transcript. You can view the transcript in its entirety here.

Sarah: “I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.”

IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

Here is a sign for your car window to publicize that all 4 candidates support traditional marriage.