If Texas voters approve 'Proposition 2' on November 8, Texas will join the eighteen other states [see endnote 2, part three] whose voters overwhelmingly approved state constitutional bans for same-sex marriage. Ten of these eighteen states already have language similar to Nebraska's, banning not only 'gay marriage' but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.
At this writing, seven states have neither statute nor constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.1
The only state that specifically allows same-sex marriages is Massachusetts. Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2003 following an activist state Supreme Judicial Court decision.2
However, on September 7, 2005, Massachusetts's Attorney General, on the last day of the deadline and despite great pressure by advocates of gay marriage, approved a strict ballot allowing voters an opportunity to vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as well as 'civil unions.' Voters have the authority to overrule the 2003 state Supreme Court decision.
Pro-family groups in Massachusetts must gather 65,825 signatures before December 7, 2005. Then a 25% approval must be obtained from the 200-member state legislature in both years 2006 and 2007. Finally, the ballot would be placed before the people of Massachusetts as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, defining marriage only 'between one man and one woman' and banning 'civil unions.'
Not surprisingly, numerous gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] have vowed to challenge the ballot approval in court and are already canvassing neighborhoods to distribute literature supporting gay rights.
On September 15, 2005 Massachusetts legislators rejected a flawed proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. Conservative Christians welcomed the defeat of the compromised ban because civil unions are dangerous to traditional marriage, especially legally speaking.3 Case in point would be Connecticut's decision to legalize civil unions earlier in 2005, granting same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples but denying them to wed. This decision is now being used in a lawsuit brought about by eight homosexual couples that seeks to force Connecticut to allow gay couples full marriage rights.4
Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston, and all Massachusetts' Catholic Bishops must teach that voting for and/or promoting same-sex marriage and civil unions is gravely immoral and separates one from communion with the Catholic Church. Church leaders of all denominations must not fail to speak in favor of only marriage between 'one man and one woman.'
More than 6,100 gay and lesbian couples have wed since May 2004 in the state of Massachusetts. Connecticut and Vermont are the only states that allow same-sex'civil unions.'5 California's Supreme Court in June 2005 let stand a new domestic partnership law granting homosexual couples the same rights and protections as that of traditional married couples. As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through activist court rulings.
Four other state legislatures have approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and will be voted on by its citizens as follows: Alabama (June 2006), South Carolina (November 2006), South Dakota (November 2006) and Tennessee (November 2006). Pro-life/pro-family constituents in these states must start preparing now for the fierce battle in 2006.
Other legal developments in states without constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage need our attention. Lower court judges in New York and Washington recently ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The rulings do not take effect pending appeals, but each case could pave the way to follow in the steps of Massachusetts' activist Supreme Judicial Court ruling. On April 15, 2005, New York City became the sixth locality in the state of New York to announce it will recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. Other localities are Brighton, Buffalo, Ithaca, Nyack, and Rochester.
Connecticut's legislature passed on April 20, 2005 the first same sex civil union bill in the nation not driven by a court decision.
All eyes are on Nebraska as an activist federal judge, on May 12, 2005, in an unprecedented ruling said Nebraska's state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendment's right and due process. The ruling, initiated by a group of homosexual and liberal activist groups, including Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Nebraska, is the first attempt by a federal court to overturn the will of the people on a state constitutional marriage amendment, especially stunning since an additional 18 states have similar amendments, at this writing.6
Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund [ADF], a non-profit religious liberty legal alliance based in Scottsdale, AZ, recently told this writer:
"We strongly disagree with the federal district court decision which held that Nebraska's Marriage Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution. We remain hopeful that it will be overruled on appeal.
Unfortunately, the decision demonstrates that ultimately these issues will be decided as a matter of federal constitutional law. It also highlights the importance of adopting a federal marriage amendment.
Nevertheless, state marriage amendments remain extremely important as they settle state law and several courts have upheld them. They also play an indirect role in federal constitutional litigation. In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court looked to state legal trends in deciding to overrule Texas' sodomy statute. Passage of state marriage amendments shows that the trend is to protect traditional marriage."
Nebraska is appealing the ruling that may ultimately go before the U.S. Supreme Court. Nebraska voters passed the state constitutional amendment with a 70% margin in favor of banning same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
If the United States does not heroically battle same-sex marriage rulings, America might eventually define as marriage: polygyny [having more than one wife]; polyandry [having more than one husband]; polyamory [group marriage]; marriage involving normal incest [brother and sister]; and same-sex incest.7 The courts could even be challenged to allow bestial marriage [non-consensual sex between man and animal].8
Space herein does not permit the possible asymmetries of so-called legalized same-sex marriages - an inimical slippery slope created by activist judges and anti-family legislators redefining marriage and legislating their own immorality. A dystopian society is not a bridge too far.9
Our nation for the last 40 years has witnessed a decline in the quality of life for our children as activist courts and legislators have allowed unions/marriages for homosexual adults that are based upon the perversions of a few.10
Homosexual activity has resulted in tens of thousands of men getting sick or dying prematurely because they engage in sexual perversions.
Homosexual marriages create motherless and fatherless families.11 Homosexual adoptions deprived the child of the inalienable right to a natural female mother and a male father as a matter of public policy.12 An immutable human truth is that children need a male and a female role model in a permanent relationship.13 Why would anyone consider placing children in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development and is gravely immoral?14
If same-sex marriages are approved by the state, then public schools will be forced to teach that they are equal to heterosexual marriage. All children will be affected and the culture will be transformed. In California, businesses are being forced to treat same-sex relationships like heterosexual marriage.15
Among children raised by same-sex couples, a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, increased mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behavior was recorded.16
We give thanks to successful reparative or reorientation therapies such as those given by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and President of National Assoc. for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH], and Director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, Encino, California.17
We must never give up the heroic battle to preserve the sacred covenant of marriage between one man and one woman who cooperate with God in the creation of a new human person, destined for eternal life.
[See Part One, Part Two, Part Three]
1 CT, MA, NJ, NM, NY, RI, WI. [Back]
2 [Citation] Goodridge v. Dept. of Health, 798 N.E. 2d 911 [Mass. Nov. 18, 2003]. [Back]
3 Cf. "Civil Unions: Trojan Horse To Conquer Marriage," Alliance Defense Fund, 4/15/05. [Back]
4 Cf. "Connecticut Gay Couples Launch Marriage Suit," http://www.365gay.com, 7/28/05. [Back]
5 Cf. "Same-sex unions a constitutional race," by Kavan Peterson, 3/29/05, Stateline.org. [Back]
6 [Citation] Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 [D. Neb. May 12, 2005]. [Back]
7 Cf. 'Hypocrisy on Adult Consent,' by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 8/28/05. [Back]
8 Cf. "Horse Sense," by Wesley J. Smith, 8/31/05, The Weekly Standard. [Back]
9 Dys•to•pi•a - noun. An imaginary place where everything is as bad as it possibly can be. [Back]
10 Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH] recently stated: "The AMA encyclopedia incorrectly notes that homosexuals comprise 10% of the population (a figure denied even by gay activists), and erroneously says that attempts to change a person's sexual orientation rarely, if ever, succeed. The 10% figure has been discredited by recent surveys, including one from Canada's Community Health Survey showing that only 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women identify themselves as homosexual. The AMA has also ignored the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer showing that some individuals with same-sex attractions can change their sexual orientation." Dr. Nicolosi and other NARTH officials are available for media interviews. Call 818.789.4440 to set up an interview. [Back]
11 "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting," by Robert Lerner, Ph.D., & Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D., Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C., January 2001. [Back]
12 Cf. "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting," by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Prof. of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, S.C. [Back]
13 Cf. "Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?" by the American College of Pediatricians [ACP]. The ACP found those studies to actually conclude that: "Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation." [Back]
14 Cf. NARTH, for numerous well-documented medical and psychological sources of the harmfulness of homosexuality upon society and individuals. Sign up for their free e-newsletter. [Back]
15 Cf. "Lesbian couple case returned to San Diego Superior Court," by SanDiego.com, 8/1/05. Cf. "California Gives Children Two Mommies," by Aaron Atwood, Family.org, 8/23/05. Gov. Schwarzenegger's spokesperson Margita Thompson said that the governor supports the state's domestic partner law but believes the issue of marriage should be left to the courts or voters. [Back]
16 Cf. "Do Mothers and Fathers Matter The Social Science Evidence on Marriage and Child Well-Being," by Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 2/27/04. [Back]
17 Cf. book, 'Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy,' by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. [Back]