The American Spectator

Jessica| 6.25.11 @ 2:28PM

It's difficult to make the case that you're standing up for "traditional marriage" when there's so very little public discussion of "divorce", which dwarfs "gay marriage" in the number of children affected by broken homes.

It's a little too late now to be screaming about "gay marriage" when the attitude towards "divorce" so far has been one of "we could really care less about that, as long as the gays can't marry".

darcy| 6.25.11 @ 5:45PM

I totally agree. Forget about sending police out into the streets to apprehend law-breakers; they're going to break the law no matter what we do. Let's just have a moratorium on any kind of "drawing the line" between what is acceptable behavior and WHAT IS NOT.

YOUR house can be first.

Jessica| 6.25.11 @ 5:55PM

darcy darcy darcy dear can you please show us ONE piece of evidence that gay marriage has caused any harm to anyone at anytime anywhere?

If you can, the lawyers defending Prop 8 would LOVE to hear from you, since they were unable to produce any themselves...

darcy| 6.25.11 @ 6:29PM

"Caused any harm." Oh no, no harm at all to those who worship the self, to those happy, if dissolute masses, who dance along with the hedonist drum-beat, to those laughing in the streets at the triumph of Marxism. No harm done at all. Sweet of you to ask.

David| 6.26.11 @ 11:26AM

Thank you for proving how you have no idea what you are talking about to everyone reading these comments. Gay Marriage is sweeping the nation one state at a time, your ignorant crusade will fail, and you will learn to deal with it. Have a wonderful.

Hobbes| 6.26.11 @ 2:13PM

So gay people in love are by definition narcissistic, but straight people in love are not? Prove it.

victor| 6.27.11 @ 2:29AM

Same goes for you Hobbes:

Which one are you?

http://officiallyscrewed.com/b.....oronto.jpg

victor| 6.27.11 @ 2:28AM

http://officiallyscrewed.com/b.....oronto.jpg

Which one are you David?

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:22PM

Yes. Find the countries that have legalized Gay Marriage, and then tell me if any breed to replacement.

(New Zealand allows Civil Unions, which is what our approach should be.)

Since marriage is primarily an institution to allow protection of children, it is vitally important to protect.

(The answer is no---not one gay marriage allowing society breeds to or above replacement. Therefore, Gay marriage is part of a counter survival culture. QED.)

Timothy L. Pennell| 6.27.11 @ 7:40AM

You're on the right track. This is what Liberals do. They get one thing, that always leads to another. Remember the Smoking Bans. They started out small: You had to smoke at the back of the plane, or in the smoking section of the Restaurant, or just in the Bar. Now you can't even smoke OUTSIDE.
They got Emergency Leave, so people wouldn't lose their jobs, if a loved one got sick. Now, they're demanding they get PAID, for that time.
Everything they do, is INCREMENTAL. They resemble the Muslim Terrorists, in their patience.
So, now we have Gay Marriage. If 2 consenting Adults wanna get Married? Well, by God they should have the right!
What about Brothers and Sisters? Can they get Married? Fathers and Daughters? What about Mothers and Sons? What about 3 people? What about 10?
I would say that it's coming, but, the truth is, the way this is written, it's already here.

Teflon93| 6.25.11 @ 2:35PM

Welcome to Obama's America, where men can marry men and women women but children have no right whatsoever to be born.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 9:28PM

It is not just Obama's America but the utopian scenario of the so-called enlightened and progressive among us.

Timothy L. Pennell| 6.27.11 @ 7:57AM

And BLACK MOBS rampage through Americas' Cities. Robbing, Raping, Stealing and KILLING it's Businesses and Citizens.
Eric Holder's people, burning down their own Chocolate Cities.
The Black Community's CHICKENS, are coming home to ROOST.
Anyone surpised?

uli_kunkel| 7.1.11 @ 3:47PM

Wow. That's some seriously racist sh*t.

Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 2:39PM

Let me see if I get this logic, there is a decline in people getting married, so to STOP the decline we should prevent others from getting married? Sorry to say once the Govt. gets involved it ain't no longer a cute little 'religious' ritual, it has to be open to all. You can thank the Christian Conservatives for getting Religion mixed up in Govt. There is a REASON for Church/State separation, now you see why.
Congrat's to all the good people of NY, bet there is going to be a GREAT party in the village tonight!

J. Savage| 6.25.11 @ 3:07PM

Because marriage is devalued. Places with SSM have very low marriage rates.

James Picht| 6.26.11 @ 12:15AM

Places with SSM had low and declining marriage rates before they had SSM. There's a statistical correlation, but no causal link from SSM to declining marriage rates has been demonstrated.

Warrior| 6.25.11 @ 9:05PM

There is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, using my argument, there is nothing in the US Constitution that would enable the federal government to stop the State of New York from allowing same sex marriage.

t.c.| 6.25.11 @ 11:44PM

the "separation of church and state" is so the state cannot interfere with religion. not so that "church" cannot be involved with state. read the constitution.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 10:51AM

There is ZERO mentions of 'God' or 'Jesus' in the Constitution, good for us!

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 3:26PM

Kook of the Net,

Boy, you're some kind of constitutional scholar, aren't you?

Because the words "[..] in the Year of our Lord [...]." aren't in the U.S. Constitution. Oh...wait a minute...yes they are, brainiac.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 6:57PM

So if i use the Gregorian calendar, I am tacitly approving of Christianity?

victor| 6.27.11 @ 2:32AM

If you were using the Gregorian calendar, we wouldn't be hearing from you for thirteen days, eh?

John Johnson| 6.25.11 @ 2:42PM

I've read the article and I don't see the connection between the heterosexual marriage and gay marriage. I have read that states that allow gay marriage actually have BETTER heterosexual marriage statistics. That said, I don't know that there is a connection there either. I suspect that successful opposite sex marriages have little, if anything, to do with marriage laws.

J. Savage| 6.25.11 @ 3:06PM

That's because the marriage rates in those states are much lower. Less marriage=less divorce.

Ben Levin| 6.27.11 @ 11:07AM

I'm sorry, but that's just shoddy reasoning.

A *rate* is a per capita measurement, for example the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. The fact that states allowing SSM do have lower divorce rates (http://tinyurl.com/ycczly5) can't be allayed by saying that they have less marriages without completely misundetstanding the concept of relative vs. absolute measurements.

Jessica| 6.25.11 @ 2:44PM

After you've launched a crusade against divorce and written articles about how we need to reform marriage laws to decrease the number of divorces, perhaps then you'll have some cred on "defending traditional marriage"...

darcy| 6.25.11 @ 6:03PM

So, for decades now marriage has been devalued, as you properly note. Why, let's not stop there with mere devaluing, let's just DESTROY the concept altogether.

Why the hell do you think it is so easy for homosexuals do have succeeded in their efforts to DESTROY the family -- the attack on the family has been going on for generations. And instead of your acknowledging that fact, you PRETEND that there has been no systematic and organized effort to destroy the family and with it OUR AMERICAN freedoms.

Just because the Marxists have been so successful in Hollywood and academia AND GOVERNMENT in undermining traditional norms, it doesn't mean that millions of Americans have been silent in opposing the trend toward complete chaos; no. We have been vocal, and as you see, the REPUBLICAN -- so-called opposition party, -- once elected, do as you see the NY "brave" Republican senate have done -- AND CAVE to the current liberal mindset and behemoth, the juggernaut -- heralding how stupid legislators would be not to see that Marxist norms are INEVITABLE. For this, they deserve our undying contempt and fitting exclusion from public office in the future.

But no. They will be praised by the Government-controlled media. Do not ever, Jessica, talk about the devaluing of marriage without also acknowledging that there is a concerted, orchestrated effort underfoot to destroy it. That the masses buy in to the nefarious schemes of leftists is a tribute to the success of the media and government in particular -- also the USSC -- to destroy America as founded.

Jessica| 6.25.11 @ 6:06PM

It's simple Darcy: show us one piece of evidence that gay marriage has caused any harm to anyone anywhere at anytime.

No one is interested in your wild conspiracy theories.

t.c.| 6.25.11 @ 11:46PM

no conspiracy theory here, you just need to do a little research. it's as simple as google.

Hobbes| 6.26.11 @ 2:15PM

Again, where is the research. Where?

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:26PM

From the Weekly Standard:

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
STANLEY KURTZ
Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more.

Notice to Reader: "The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly reiterate the Catechism's teaching that people who self-identify as gays and lesbians must be treated with 'respect, compassion, and sensitivity' (CCC #2358). The Boards also support the Church's right to speak to aspects of this issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and lesbians to hatred or intolerance."

Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern — including gay marriage — is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Spedale's report of lower divorce rates and higher marriage rates in post-gay marriage Denmark is thus misleading. Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America. In Scandinavian demography, what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family dissolution rate.

The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate. Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.

Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly in the seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate past the 50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more disturbing. Growth in the out-of-wedlock birthrate is limited by the tendency of parents to marry after a couple of births, and also by the persistence of relatively conservative and religious districts. So as out-of-wedlock childbearing pushes beyond 50 percent, it is reaching the toughest areas of cultural resistance. The most important trend of the post-gay marriage decade may be the erosion of the tendency to marry at the birth of a second child. Once even that marker disappears, the path to the complete disappearance of marriage is open.

And now that married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon, it has lost the critical mass required to have socially normative force. As Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the wake of the changes of the nineties, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family — neither legally nor normatively. . . . What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood."

So the highly touted half-page of analysis from an unpublished paper that supposedly helps validate the "conservative case" for gay marriage — i.e., that it will encourage stable marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike — does no such thing. Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline — an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood — can be linked to gay marriage. To see this, we need to understand why marriage is in trouble in Scandinavia to begin with.

Scandinavia has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world. So let's have a look at the decline of Swedish marriage.

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step — the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures — or higher tax rates — than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.

Yet the Swedish welfare state may encourage traditionalism in one respect. The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of. Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. Strong state enforcement of child support is another factor discouraging single motherhood by teens. Whatever the causes, the discouragement of lone motherhood is a short-term effect. Ultimately, mothers and fathers can get along financially alone. So children born out of wedlock are raised, initially, by two cohabiting parents, many of whom later break up.

There are also cultural-ideological causes of Swedish family decline. Even more than in the United States, radical feminist and socialist ideas pervade the universities and the media. Many Scandinavian social scientists see marriage as a barrier to full equality between the sexes, and would not be sorry to see marriage replaced by unmarried cohabitation. A related cultural-ideological agent of marital decline is secularism. Sweden is probably the most secular country in the world. Secular social scientists (most of them quite radical) have largely replaced clerics as arbiters of public morality. Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism. And many studies confirm that, throughout the West, religiosity is associated with institutionally strong marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a weakening of marriage. Scholars have long suggested that the relatively thin Christianization of the Nordic countries explains a lot about why the decline of marriage in Scandinavia is a decade ahead of the rest of the West.

Are Scandinavians concerned about rising out-of-wedlock births, the decline of marriage, and ever-rising rates of family dissolution? No, and yes. For over 15 years, an American outsider, Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe, has played Cassandra on these issues. Popenoe's 1988 book, "Disturbing the Nest," is still the definitive treatment of Scandinavian family change and its meaning for the Western world. Popenoe is no toe-the-line conservative. He has praise for the Swedish welfare state, and criticizes American opposition to some child welfare programs. Yet Popenoe has documented the slow motion collapse of the Swedish family, and emphasized the link between Swedish family decline and welfare policy.

For years, Popenoe's was a lone voice. Yet by the end of the nineties, the problem was too obvious to ignore. In 2000, Danish sociologist Mai Heide Ottosen published a study, "Samboskab, Aegteskab og Foraeldrebrud" ("Cohabitation, Marriage and Parental Breakup"), which confirmed the increased risk of family dissolution to children of unmarried parents, and gently chided Scandinavian social scientists for ignoring the "quiet revolution" of out-of-wedlock parenting.

Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

The decline of marriage and the rise of unstable cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth are not confined to Scandinavia. The Scandinavian welfare state aggravates these problems. Yet none of the forces weakening marriage there are unique to the region. Contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, spreading secularism, ascendant individualism, and a substantial welfare state are found in every Western country. That is why the Nordic pattern is spreading.

Yet the pattern is spreading unevenly. And scholars agree that cultural tradition plays a central role in determining whether a given country moves toward the Nordic family system. Religion is a key variable. A 2002 study by the Max Planck Institute, for example, concluded that countries with the lowest rates of family dissolution and out-of-wedlock births are "strongly dominated by the Catholic confession." The same study found that in countries with high levels of family dissolution, religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, had little influence.

British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, the acknowledged authority on the spread of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births across Europe, divides the continent into three zones. The Nordic countries are the leaders in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. They are followed by a middle group that includes the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany. Until recently, France was a member of this middle group, but France's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has moved it into the Nordic category. North American rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth put the United States and Canada into this middle group. Most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births are the southern European countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, and, until recently, Switzerland and Ireland. (Ireland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has just pushed it into the middle group.)

These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success.

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Stanley Kurtz. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia." Weekly Standard Volume 9, Issue 20 (February 2, 2004).

Reprinted with permission from the Weekly Standard.

All rights reserved. To subscribe to America, call 1-800-627-9533.

THE AUTHOR

Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a contributing editor at National Review Online. He has written on some of the most controversial issues of the day — campus free speech, affirmative action, grade inflation, feminism, gay marriage, and the role of religion in public life. With a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard University, Kurtz has also written at length on the social roots of Middle East terrorism and the role of women in the Muslim world. He has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Policy Review, Commentary, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. After conducting field research in India, Kurtz published extensively on religion, family life, and psychology in non-Western cultures. Formerly a Dewey Prize Lecturer in the social sciences at the University of Chicago, Kurtz has also won numerous teaching awards for his work in a great books program at Harvard University.

Copyright © 2004 Weekly Standard"

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 1:17AM

Darcy,
Since you, and your ilk, seem hell-bent on the redefining of marriage, the onus is upon YOU to define the benefits of so-called gay marriage to society. It not Darcy, nor anyone else's place, to defend the status quo when it is YOU who wishes to change it.

First, let's review the real value of real marriage in society?
The perpetuation of society and the state depend upon enduring heterosexual unions. The endurance of a society (and the state) depends greatly upon the volume of (real) marriages and the reproduction that takes place there, not to mention the stability it brings. That should be apparent to everyone (without a gay agenda).

The role of government in marriage has been and should continue to be the nurturing of this huge building block of society we call (real) marriage. Other than that role, government has no right to redefine nor change the status of real marriage in this country.

So, please, Jessica, since you wish to redefine the historical definition of marriage, explain to us just exactly how society (or the state) benefits equally from gay marriage as it does for real marriage.

I want you to "show us just one piece of evidence" that gay marriage offers the same value to the state and society in its ability to reproduce and sustain society.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 1:17AM

sorry, my last post should be addressed to Jessica, not Darcy

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 12:08PM

You did have me confuzzled for awhile there.

Hobbes| 6.26.11 @ 2:23PM

I can show you a lot of evidence. I know many wonderful lesbian couples who have raised healthy, Ivy-League educated children together, after suffering through disastrous heterosexual marriages. The sky is not going to fall because of gay marriage. Get over it. God is not going to destroy the earth because of gay marriage.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:33PM

Hobbes,
If you know such people, they obviously did it without gay marriage ....that fact completely negates your argument.

liz| 6.27.11 @ 11:41AM

@ Sharp Right Turn.
-There are SSM that have adopted orphaned children due to the failings of OSM. Therefore they have given children the chance not to wind up on the streets destitute like their paternal straight parents would have offered them the chance to do so. How about that for helping societies? One less panhandler. Hoorah!

-What about artificially inseminated mothers of SSM? Do they offer value to society?

- SSM will allow for more money to flow into the economy with the weddings that will be held vs. irresponsible, last minute ,and low income shot gun weddings that involve teenagers getting married in a courthouse.

-While you are making arguments why don't you pressure sex education to be taught in schools more so misguided youth wouldn't wind up ignorantly knocking each other up b/c society didn't show them the correct way to use a contraception. Marriages like that are usually doomed right from the get go.

-Also could you acknowledge that the world may already have too many people! There is a such thing as overpopulation so I believe that SSM is actually helping society in a way by reducing the carbon foot print.

- Should we outlaw OSM if the people married can not get pregnant or do not wish to get pregnant?

-What about Atheists ? should their marriages be invalid since the constitution does mention the lord...?

-What about people who bear children with severe disabilities? Should their marriage be considered useless since their child will most likely not contribute to society?

-There is a multitude of ways to contribute to society without reproducing along with a multitude of ways to hurt society by reproducing.Think of all of the horrible tragedies that have occurred by the hands of men and women born from opposite sex marriages.

I mean please extrapolate

victor| 6.27.11 @ 2:42AM

Hobbes (without Calvin):
"God is not going to destroy the earth because of gay marriage."

There are two groups of people:

Those that have Bibles, but don't read them.

Those that read them, but don't believe them.

If you read the Book of Revelation, you will see why God is going to destroy the Earth.

Homo Sexual "Marriage" is but one of the reasons.
Following false teachings and false teachers will be another.
What do you think God will do to the "churches" that sanction Homo Sexual "Marriage"?

What do you think he will say to so-called Catholics and Episcopalians and Anglicans when they tell Him how proud they were to promote Sin, eh?

Maybe you should ask yourself that?

TBP| 7.1.11 @ 12:07PM

Actually, if you read the Bible, it is clear that God is going to destroy the Earth because he decided to a long time ago, for no apparent reason. He just wants to. Just like he just wants to torture most people forever because the pick the wrong religion.

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 7:46AM

Considering someone else posted something similar in this thread, I call TALKING POINT.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:55PM

Sorry...hate it when I've hit "submit" and realize I've made that type of mistake! :)

D.| 6.27.11 @ 3:10PM

"First, let's review the real value of marriage in society. The perpetuation of society and the state depend on enduring unions. The endurance of a society (and the state) depends greatly upon the volume of marriages and the stability it brings".

Gee, when you remove the references to *type* of sex two people have, it seems there's no difference in benefit to society or the State.

Happy to fix that for ya SharpRightTurn.

Chris| 6.26.11 @ 8:42AM

1. It hurts homosexuals because it leads them to believe that their behavior is normal and healthy. It's not. Homosexuals end up with all manner of physical and emotional problems due to their behavior.

2. It's another nail in the coffin of marriage (not same sex pseudo marriage). No fault divorce and other items have already severely weakened it and you can see the social and emotional costs all around. This will most likely push it over the edge.

3. It's going to hurt people who oppose homosexual behavior and believe it to be immoral. It won't be long before people who speak out against it will be charged with a crime.

So Jessica, there are lots of bad things that are going to happen. It won't be overnight, but just give it time.

Hobbes| 6.26.11 @ 2:17PM

Why be a hater? Can't you live and let live? Why do you feel so threatened? You can't kill all the gay people, hiter-dude, so get used to them.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:48PM

Hobbes....
What insincerity.....No one is asking for the death of anyone. Chris just laid out some valid reasons not to pursue so-called gay marriage in this country.
You did nothing to refute except call names and accuse someone of wishing the death of others, which he did not even come close to doing.
It isn't hateful to disagree with the redefining of real marriage.....something never done in history!

Besides, this "live and let live" is a pretty old and decptive line since much of what Chris wrote clearly states how those of us who believe gay marriage is wrong and harmful will be FORCED to accept it and its consequences (ie attacks on our freedom of speech, freedom of worship and potentially criminal arrest).

So I guess that "live and let live thing" really doesn't apply here. You and those who proclaim such "openness" to others will let us "live" all right, but only "let live" according to your wants, needs, and desires.

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 7:23AM

Hobbes, thanks for proving point #3.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:39PM

I have no problems with Civil Unions for Gays, which will give them Civil Rights, Insurance Rights, etc. I have a LOT of problems with further devaluing marriage. I am a social and political Conservative. Let's look at this from a Catholic perspective.

A discussion of the importance of the thickets of law in keeping social order from A Man for All Seasons:

"Wife: Arrest him!
More: For what?
Wife: He's dangerous!
Roper: For all we know he's a spy!
Daughter: Father, that man's bad!
More: There's no law against that!
Roper: There is, God's law!
More: Then let God arrest him!
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Rope:r Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

Go ahead, cut another part of the rule of law that has prevailed for Centuries down. After all, the no-fault divorce law has done this country SO much good, right? The laws facilitating Fathers to avoid taking responsibility for their children legally has done the Black and native American families so much good, right?

There are no countries that have legalized gay marriage that are breeding to replacement. This lack of babies will result in an aging of society, a lack of innovation, a lowered standard of living, and a fraying social welfare net.

It is important to cut through the emotion with the razor of natural logic. Gay marriage is an antisurvival cultural trait.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:05PM

See this is a difference between Conservatives and Liberals, you see something you don't like and rather than just not doing it yourself you want to FORCE everyone not to do it.Liberals(and Libertarians) say go ahead, it's not for me but your free to do what you want.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:37PM

Kingof the net....
What a hypocrite.....For every measure gained by a lying gay lobby, I am being forced to accept something that I believe to be completely immoral and wrong for society.
So your high and mighty "live and let live" stops at the closet door.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 10:01PM

See that's the difference between being ILLEGAL and IMMORAL, some Christians (and Others) don't like GAMBLING or DRINKING(Even thou Curiously Jesus Drank), certain others have problems with eating Pork and Scallops., but all those things are LEGAL. I Personally don't eat SUSHI, might be the best food in the world, but I'll never know, I personally would have no problem if they NEVER was another SUSHI restaurant built anywhere, and would prefer to see ANY other type of Restaurant built in my neighborhood.That being said IF I had the power to nix the construction of one, I wouldn't it's not my place to tell others what to eat. Somehow I suspect if you were me you would have NO problem stopping something you don't like.

Handy| 6.27.11 @ 2:03AM

I think you are a likeable sort, but could you do us one favor? Maybe two.

Beforer you hit Enter, get up from that keyboard and take a pee. Then, check your spelling.

victor| 6.27.11 @ 2:46AM

kingofdanet:
"(Even thou Curiously Jesus Drank),"

Another atheist talking point, meaning it's a darn LIE!

Godslaw| 7.16.11 @ 12:56AM

if that was true then why are liberals forcing Gay marraige with bills.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:02PM

So gay people wake up in the morning and instead of saying, wouldn't be nice if I can inherit property from my partner if He/She dies or wouldn't be nice if I can make medical decisions in an emergency for someone I love. No instead they say 'how can I destroy the Nuclear Family'. Yup makes perfect sense.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:35PM

King of the net....if property, death, and medical decisions is all "they" want.....
You don't need gay marriage, but a contract and legal settlements for that.
Why destroy the historical, traditional, and biblical meaning of marriage for what your tone indicates you believe to be so inconsequential?

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 8:58PM

Well it lost it's 'Biblical Meanings' when the Govt got into the act, what about Muslims do they marry for the 'biblical meanings'? I digress, anyway here is the problem for 'Civil Unions' , while it 'might' be possible for a Govt. to provide it's citizens some sort of 'marriage' equity that way, it would mean NOTHING in say in Europe or the Middle East, as it is now we have Bi lateral agreements between Countries that for one RESPECTS each other marriages. Like "Diplomatic Immunity" they might not like it when a Diplomat commits a crime, but they don't get to prosecute.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 9:37PM

Muslims (as many other religions) also have a tradition and history for marriage....which I believe I mentioned along with biblical.

I think you are spinning now. Now, your premise is that we need gay marriage for international purposes. What hogwash. Besides if you want to move to Europe or the Middle East...then start your gay crusade over there. But don't redefine marriage for me based on a weak argument that "unions" don't pass the international immunity test.

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 11:02AM

"Why the hell do you think it is so easy for homosexuals do have succeeded in their efforts to DESTROY the family"

Please provide an example of a family destroyed by homosexuals. Unless of course you are referring to gay men and lesbians who enter into heterosexual marriages, only later to discover that this was a sad mistake. But that's a situation that the legality and availability of same-sex marriage would actually discourage.

Peter| 6.28.11 @ 12:46AM

Jack: The American public doesn't want your elitist, east coast, alternative, intellectual, left wing-

Liz: Jack, just say Jewish, this is taking forever.

Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 3:00PM

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas just bought a walk up in the Village, quote: I wanna keep an eye on those homosexuals, a VERY close eye...

CalMark| 6.25.11 @ 11:04PM

Oh, shut up.

Hobbes| 6.26.11 @ 3:39PM

Brilliant repartee. A logic major?

Kerry| 6.25.11 @ 3:29PM

I agree with this article. On March 6, 2004, World Magazine's cover story, The Nordic Track by Gene Edward Veith covered this same topic. Research by Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institute plainly reveals the social fallout of redefining marriage. The article shows the social breakdown experienced in Scandinavia after homosexual marriage was legalized. Homosexuals gained the right to marry, but today few actually do and some openly admit they never really intended to. Yet, their 'victory' dealt the death blow to marriage as an institution--an institution already weak due to the ease and frequency of divorce. Now, in Scandinavia few heterosexuals marry anymore. It is now a welfare state with the government backstopping the costs of the social breakdown. Most adults must work to pay high taxes that support the welfare state while their children are raised in daycare run by the government. It's sick. Mr. Guardiano is dead right in identifying the interdependent public consequences of so called 'private' choices.

mlindroo| 6.25.11 @ 7:13PM

You (and Kurtz, Guardiano too) fail to grasp that the main drivers are rising standards of living enabling a stronger focus on individual freedom than it the past. By "individual freedom" I do not mean abstract notions such as the absence of coercive laws. Freedom means having options such as the ability to have kids, get a university education etc. regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or the socio-economic position of your parents. This kind of "freedom" was much more restricted 50 years ago than today, in part because standards of living were lower so (e.g.) women had to rely more on parents and husbands.

Ironically, your ideological enemies from Scandinavia are as obsessed with individual rights as you are. The main difference is they think the state has an obligation to help the poor, single women, gays etc. achieve their dreams. Whereas American conservatives still desperately cling to the belief that traditional pre-1960s marriage (no divorce, no premarital sex, no contraceptives etc.) is realistic in a society which emphasizes individualism and instant self gratification at every turn. You can probably have a coercive state that explicitly or implicitly imposes either "traditional marriage" or western individualism, but not both at the same time. The U.S. conservative ideal of a weak state combined with individualism and strong traditional families simply is not a realistic objective anymore. You can have two of these but not all three at the same time.

Finally, it's worth noting that American kids are more likely than their Scandinavian counterparts to experience the failure of their parents' relationship. Isn't this kind of stability more important than the fact more men and women choose cohabitation instead of formal marriage?

MARCU$

Kerry| 6.25.11 @ 11:30PM

Marcus, thank you for your reply, but I cannot agree with the premise that our standard of living has given rise to demand for same sex marriage. What I see is that the American public has had homosexuality constantly marketed to it over the last two decades through our media and entertainment. I observe the growing dysfunction in families and our culture due to the breakdown of the family and the relentless sexualization of our culture. But, exactly where does all this freedom lead? Most of the time it leads to dysfunction, pain and bondage. The most foolish thing of all is when people suggest we do away with or lower standards simply because many fall short of them.

mlindroo| 6.26.11 @ 4:15AM

Thanks for your polite response, Kerry.

My point is that high standards of living (combined with technology driven changes such as TV and the Internet) _indirectly_ strengthen individual rights while reducing the power of traditional moral authorities and institutions. There is nothing unique about gay rights in this respect. Gay marriage etc. is merely one comparatively minor result of a particular trend and not the cause.

You say the end result has been "dysfunction in families and our culture due to the breakdown of the family and the relentless sexualization of our culture. " I don't disagree with all of the above, mind you, but I cannot see how you can reverse the trend. This particular genie left the bottle decades ago. In *theory*, Republicans could try to stem the tide by passing laws making it harder to get a divorce, severely restricting gay rights etc.. But this does not seem to be a popular position even within the conservative movement, which currently tends to favor libertarian ideals.

MARCU$

Kerry| 6.26.11 @ 1:30PM

The trend reverses when the public is so steeped in consequences that it recognizes the value of morality and traditions it failed to appreciate. It seems the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of conservatism despite the efforts of a dedicated minority who want to impose their will on our country and who have succeeded thus far largely by moving into and leveraging media, entertainment, education, politics and our courts. Even much of the church has been infiltrated and bent.

The majority has been cultivated to accept same sex marriage. Without this conditioning, virtually all Americans would define a family as Dad, Mom and their kids.

I watch all the evidences being presented in comments in this story intended to convince those following that same sex marriage yields the same cost/benefit ratio to society. Yet, one model is natural and the other is manufactured. You don't need mountains of scientific claims to know they are not equivalent. Attempts to redefine marriage are like Clinton arguing the definition of the word 'is'. Most Americans know full well what marriage is (what it's always been), which is why in state after state when the people vote, they vote to reject same sex marriage. Those pushing for it have succeeded only by strategically advancing their agenda. It has been anything but natural. It is calculated. The majority are having same sex marriage forced upon them--some pushing back and others who have merely succumbed to the PC koolaid and no longer resist.

I imagine that some day it may benefit a certain group to convince the world that up is down and down is up. They may succeed, but they will fall short of being able to change the laws of nature. Reality always has the final say, often exacting a high price when ignored.

darcy| 6.26.11 @ 3:15PM

Kerry: Excellent summary and well argued. I agree 100% with your comments and conclusion -- reality has the final say. Manufactured "marriage" is just that, counterfeit and artificial. It is nothing more than a tool to further erode the concept of family -- much to the delight of the enemies of Western civilization.

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:53PM

Kerry....well said...and I agree!

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 11:08AM

"The majority has been cultivated to accept same sex marriage. Without this conditioning, virtually all Americans would define a family as Dad, Mom and their kids."

How does the legalization of same sex marriage stop anyone from continuing to define their family in such a way? It's not a zero sum game. The mere existence of same-sex households and families doesn't crowd out all others. There can and will continue to be more than one family type. It's not a winner-takes-all contest or anything.

gearjammer| 6.26.11 @ 9:12AM

These Scandanavian countries tend to have low birth rates. Most who have kids want them and not out of wedlock. Yhe same kind of people in America do just as well as they do on many of these matters. Scandanavians are highly of one homogenous ethnic group-we have our unassimilated crazy quilt of tribes-Scandanavia would never let this happen to them. Gay marriage is here and will help the traditionalist cause. Soon the wild eyed nut job sex obsessed hipsters will be decending upon our schools demanding to educate our kids, as they deem proper. They dream of the day when some muscle bound man in lingerie from VS teaches and preaches to our kids about all things " normal". Then the majority of sensible people will wake up, and vouchers and school choice will be demanded.

mlindroo| 6.26.11 @ 2:28PM

Actually, gearjammer, 13% of the Swedish population was born abroad so the difference between Sweden and the "U.S. melting pot" isn't that great anymore.

MARCU$

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:46PM

Sweden is the 12th oldest society in the world. Median age is 41.7 years.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:50PM

It also has a birth rate of 1.67 babies per woman. replacement rate is 2.1. Old society, median female age is 42.9 years (well into Down territory), breeding well under replacement.

Good bye.

Morris Minor| 6.25.11 @ 8:11PM

That is more of a rationale to curtail the welfare state than to make gay marriage a scapegoat for something that happened long before the idea came into the public domain. Maybe if they stopped subsidizing single mothers, people might start marrying more.

John Johnson| 6.25.11 @ 3:45PM

J Savage, you should name your resources, if you have some, assuming you're not just making it up.
Here's what I found at http://pewsocialtrends.org/200.....tate-tour. These are 2009 statistics and I don't know anything about the group who did the study, which is always significant. Average married men nationally is 53%. New York is 49% (below average, SSM legal as of July 2011), Alasksa 47% (below average, SSM not legal), Iowa 56% (above average, SSM legal as of April 2009), Idaho 58% (above average, SSM not legal). These statistics are mixed at best. Where do you get your information?

- Jim

Jessica| 6.25.11 @ 3:54PM

LOL you Big Government types kill me. If marriage isn't a "private choice" then I don't know what is!

As for the so-called destruction of marriage in Scandinavia, a little education could go a long way: http://kickingalion.wordpress......xperiment/

Net: no harm done to marriage because the gays are now marrying.

And blaming gays and lesbians for cohabitation rates that were high long before same-sex marriage came about - and did not increase after it came about - is just plain silliness.

Educate yourself and get the facts before you open your mouth and sound ignorant.

Kerry| 6.25.11 @ 8:35PM

Jessica, your posts are thinly disguised GLBT talking points. You are obviously deeply invested in trying to shape public perception in favor of gay marriage. But, your evidence to 'debunk' a recognized researcher's findings in Scandinavia is a blog kept by a gay rights activist that includes a couple articles written by unknown people making authoritative sounding claims without identifying sources? It is obvious why Mr. Kurtz's has been singled out for attack. His research and findings should certainly cause many who believe gay marriage won't affect them to think again. The truth is, the bill when society breaks down is shared by all taxpayers--those who could see the writing on the wall, those who couldn't, and those who could care less.

Handy| 6.25.11 @ 4:26PM

The problem is women. Like Valentine's Day, marriage is a false construct, invented by girls.

Here's da deal. Wimmen and men should occupy separate continents and get together for about 30 days per year at neutral resorts for breeding purposes only. This would satisfy the female urge to "fulfill" themselves with babies and would reduce all the stress from men who have to deal with their constant bitching the other 11 months of the year.

Gays can have Fire Island and bitch at each other all year long.

Morris Minor| 6.25.11 @ 8:09PM

This is the best comment on this thread, glad someone still has a sense of humor nand some sanity

Equality?| 6.25.11 @ 6:18PM

So sterile people should not be allowed to marry? Or older people past child-bearing age? Or those who make the choice to not have children!! That would be selfish of them. You are trying to mask bigotry, quit pretending it is for some higher social ideal. Homosexuals are as capable of raising a family as anyone. By your own argument more marraiges=stronger society.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 2:12PM

It's Sunday, so I will keep this clean.

I love menopausal women. The don't smell, they don't swell, and they are grateful as hell.

Amen!!!

Godslaw| 7.16.11 @ 1:11AM

A true homsexual wouldnt have kids anyway.

Lisa| 6.25.11 @ 6:52PM

Same-sex marriage not only opens up a Pandora's Box of social issues, it means more bureaucracy and higher taxes and cost-of-living expenses for everyone. So much for the idiotic "how-does-it-affect-you-if-gays-want-to-marry" argument.

In Massachusetts, school children are taught that "gay is OK", and their parents cannot opt them out of this "instruction". If gay parents learned their kids were being taught that "straight is great", they'd sue the school district!

But more insidious is how it impacts freedom of religion, which is what the same-sex marriage advocates really want: the dissolution of religion and religious institutions, and secular atheism put in its place.

If a state extends marital recognition to Adam and Steve and to Eve and Neive, what basis does it have to deny marital recognition to bigamists? Or polygamists? Or blood relatives? Or to Adam and Steve AND Eve and Neive?

Legalization of same-sex marriage is a train looking for a wreck.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 2:18PM

I dated a girl named Pandora. She was Greek.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:09PM

Did she have a nice 'Box'?

Handy| 6.27.11 @ 1:12AM

It had all sorts of evil delights. Yummy, even.

Teflon93| 6.25.11 @ 7:56PM

There is s a reason why homosexual marriage has never existed throughout human history.

It is because our ancestors were sane.

Skippy| 6.25.11 @ 8:14PM

Priceless comment!

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 1:20AM

BINGO!

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 10:54AM

Most marriages throughout human history consisted of wives being traded as property, arranged marriages and often multiple wives.

These are our 'sane' ancestors?

Skippy| 6.25.11 @ 7:57PM

A musical interlude.
With apologies to Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn.

Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage,
with conventionality disparaged,
who will push the carriage,
you just can't tell with same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage, ceremonies,
on the license it says Bill & Tony,
which one gets the shower,
which one gets to toss the flowers.

Try, try, try to codify this union (it's an illusion),
why, why must we villify what Ward and June done?

Same-sex marriage, same-sex weddings,
but there's something that we're all forgetting,
it takes a Mom and Father,
you can't have one (it might be fun),
but you can't have one without the other.

Thanks; we're here all week.
"I'm changing the name of the album to 'Throw Money' "

Teflon93| 6.25.11 @ 8:45PM

This is wonderful but will surely run you afoul of the PC Police. The homosexual community is the first to insist that condemnation of certain sexual behaviors is akin to bigotry against someone on the basis of skin color. The fact that the behavior is frowned upon regardless of one's creed, national origin, religion, race, or even sexual orientation is beyond the understanding of the activist, who somehow believes that putting the last nail in the coffin of holy matrimony will give them the fulfillment they lack at present.

Morris Minor| 6.25.11 @ 8:07PM

While I agree and lament the sorry state of regular marriages and out of wedlock birth, there is no relation between this issue and gay marriage. Gays are not responsible for any of that. Even more, maybe if gays could marry and not get into normal marriages they are constitutionally unsuited for, there would be less divorces.

Teflon93| 6.25.11 @ 8:52PM

There is a direct linkage between the two: it is the corruption of marriage as a sacrament, the secularization of America which has driven matrimony from sacrament to mere contract, and the demographic death wish which comes from loathing children.

The festering nihilism that has taken root in American culture is the engine of all of this. This is why gay marriage has simply been unthinkable throughout human history: it is fundamentally incompatible with having and rearing children. No civilization until hours has had such a death wish.

Once this is accepted, there are simply no limits upon marriage whatsoever---number of parties, age, species, etc. After all, on what basis would we reject such arrangements, marriage being merely a boost to the self-esteem of whatever fetishist comes up with the most novel claim for hewing to that which they profess to love most?

It is insanity and it is depressing to see just how many conservatives have fully drunk the P.C. Kool-Aid on the subject.

PJ| 6.25.11 @ 10:40PM

"Once this is accepted, there are simply no limits upon marriage whatsoever---number of parties, age, species, etc."

I remember reading a few yrs ago about a British woman marrying a dolphin. http://www.ynetnews.com/articl.....3,00.html.

If we reject the traditional definition of marriage, then anything goes. This woman marrying a dolphin is a prelude to what WILL happen in the future. There will be no standards to follow.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 4:36AM

Do not copulate with lemurs.

Well, they are primates, and if you have a license...

OK. Go ahead, Never mind. Forget what I said.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:52PM

Spain is giving Primates human rights. Good news for the Ron Paul supporters on this site.

CalMark| 6.25.11 @ 11:11PM

The same people who started destroying marriage in the 1960s have changed their focus.

The same idiots who screeched in the 1960s that "marriage is just a piece of paper" are now the ones screeching that "everybody has a right to get married."

P.S. Where are the hierarchical Christian churches with the institutional "oomph" to fight this rot? Oh, wait--forget it. Mainline Protestants are ecstatically embracing homosexuality and all its pomps and works. The Catholic Church is too preoccupied with finding a way to reconcile Marxism with itself.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 4:45AM

The Pope is Karl's butt buddy.

Explains a lot.

Thanks

James M. Baker| 7.6.11 @ 8:33AM

Mainline? Last I checked Baptists were not falling into this trap, at least not the indepentants. Although some of them are going a bit far in the other direction.

wayne| 6.25.11 @ 11:12PM

the gay ncouple down the street have been together 22 years and one adopted 2 young kids who had been discarded from a "traditional marriage"at ages 5 and 7. Their son is now a junior in law school and their daughter just graduated college 4.0. Being in a "traditional marriage", I will bless them all the days of my life!

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 1:24AM

Wow, Wayne...and if they've been together 22 years they did it all WITHOUT gay marriage didn't they?

If the arrangement is so great and homosexual parents are wonderful, and marriage meant nothing to them in order to accomplish such a great family.....then why is a redefinition of real marriage necessary? Explain.

John2| 6.26.11 @ 2:29PM

Don't be so quick to accept the self-serving anecdote as true.

Doesn't it trigger your BS sensor? It does mine.

Chris| 6.27.11 @ 7:32AM

Someone else posted something similar (and with better grammar). Yes, it smells of a the old "I know someone who is 'X' and they are okay" talking point.

Butch| 6.26.11 @ 5:08PM

Well, the gay "couple" across the street from me both died of AIDS. I went to the first one's funeral where the main speaker, his ex-brother-in-law, said not one good word about him, and I understood. I didn't go to the second funeral.

Shawn| 6.26.11 @ 12:03AM

After reading this article, I am very confused about the evidence presented that relates "marriage equality" hurting children. It seems the author used data on the dissolution of the family unit, which the author himself claims is unrelated to "marriage equality", to infer that "marriage equality" is instead further dissolution of the family unit. The author also infers that "marriage equality" would result in more dysfunctional families that require state intervention without presenting any evidence to support this claim. I would argue that two parents are better than one, regardless of gender. I would also argue that "marriage equality" would lead to more adoption of children who are currently at the states expense. I suppose my evidence would start with Wayne's comment. I could pick more things from this article, but I think this should be sufficient to conclude that the author presented no evidence that "'marriage equality' is bad for America and hurts children." What the author did was present some bad news, and attach the phrase "marriage equality" in a sad attempt to relate the two.

shadow_man| 6.26.11 @ 12:19AM

Children will not be harmed by gay marriage. Let's examine research and prove what anti-gays are saying wrong. Also note, that "children" are completely irrelevant to gay marriage, because that issue is about gay adoption, which is not related.

http://www.livescience.com/607.....-show.html
"In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being."

http://www.magneticfire.com/2010/02/19/1119/
"Goldberg’s new book is the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970s to the present day. The research is consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents."

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:34AM

Shadow Man,

Wrong!

DrJaneDoe| 6.27.11 @ 11:32PM

Oh, Nick, good comeback. That totally refutes 40 years of research.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:53PM

Yeah, I remember reviewing that article in my literature review. The methodology was self-reports, if I recall, with no objective observation base.

shadow_man| 6.26.11 @ 12:20AM

Children will not be harmed by gay marriage.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he.....usted-kids
"Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....091240.htm
"In a study published this month in the journal Demography, Rosenfeld concludes that children being raised by same-sex couples have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married heterosexual couples."

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:34AM

Shadow Man,

Wrong!

shadow_man| 6.26.11 @ 12:21AM

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:34AM

Shadow Man,

Wrong!

shadow_man| 6.26.11 @ 12:21AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:34AM

Shadow Man,

Wrong!

shadow_man| 6.26.11 @ 12:22AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:36AM

Shadow Man,

Wrong!

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 5:02AM

Gays can't reason, or spell. They should be killed, lest they run over someone with their electric wheelchairs.

Why did your life partner "off" himself? Could it have been your incessant bitching? Maybe your bad driving skills?

shadow_man| 6.27.11 @ 3:05AM

Handy: I'm very disappointed in your bad trolling. Why are kids these days so bad at it? Trolls 10 years ago were a force. Trolls nowadays are terrible at it =)

Jncc| 6.26.11 @ 12:38AM

Yes indeed, the looming threat of gay marriage is clearly to blame for the skyrocketing divorce rates over the past 40 years. Spot on!

XTheObscure| 6.26.11 @ 12:57AM

As a moderate-libertarian, I honestly do not understand this. Stable, loving families provide security for children. This much is obvious. A single parent simply doesn't have the time or energy to both raise a child and work for a living, one or the other is thus neglected.
What does that insight have to do with gay marriage, other than assuming "nontraditional"==bad? Tradition is custom, not morality or reason. Arguing that the traditional is always right is just as stupid as arguing the novel is always right.
For that matter, I don't see any reason why two men or two women could not provide for a child better than a single parent, nor would they have any more difficulty with having children than an infertile couple.
As for offense at teaching 'gay is okay' in public schools? What's stopping offended parents from taking kids to private schools or homeschooling? Or, if paying for such schools is so offensive, why not oppose public education altogether and support vouchers for lower-income students instead?

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 5:35AM

Because GOD don't like it, that's the reason don't fool yourself otherwise.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 5:07AM

Yessss!!!

Finally a cogent argument against public schools.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.26.11 @ 1:53PM

Yesterday Bachmann was going to introduce a constitutional amendment to outlaw marriage between two men or two women; here is what she is saying today.
“Poised to formally launch her presidential campaign, a more cautious Michele Bachmann suggested Sunday that she regretted assailing President Obama’s “anti-American views” and refused to rule out nominating judges who favor gay marriage.”
I could give a rat’s patooty about gay marriage; but I will not put up with pandering, nor will I put up with another wishy-washy beltway bonehead saying one thing one day and something different the next. We have one of them in office now that has just about destroyed the country. No more.

Handy| 6.26.11 @ 2:26PM

"Beltway Bonehead." Priceless.

Weren't you the one who invented "Vulture Capitalist?" I love that one, too.

Warrior| 6.26.11 @ 2:56PM

This is the issue the big R's need to fire up the evangelical right. Watch them try to get tough on a DOMA type law, which of course has no chance of even getting to the Senate to get rejected. All the while, they will speak about marriage and abortion and not one word will be mentioned about enumerated powers or attempting to reduce the federal monster whatsoever.

Nero69| 6.26.11 @ 4:20PM

It is sad how America has evolved. Ignorance has spread like wildfire in this country. I live in NY and I have to say the passing of this bill is depressing. A marriage is suppose to be between a MALE and FEMALE in case anyone forgot. John and Mary not John and Gary simply put. Mankind is the weirdest animal on this earth. Look at nature you would never see two male lions having sex. Its sickening to see two gay couples having a child that was brought in this world by a MAN and a WOMAN, confusing children and teaching that gay marriage is good in schools??? ridiculous. Its funny how these same people who are doing these atrocities will beg for their lives in the last days. So let them have their "victory" in the end all will have to be judged on their lives. This country used to be religious, good values of the family. Now its deplorable, full of sodomy, abortions, and atheists. Sad.

Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:13PM

Lovely God you got there...

SharpRightTurn| 6.26.11 @ 8:56PM

Yes... he is.... a loving and just God....one who also loves you.

XTheObscure| 6.26.11 @ 9:27PM

If what some of His followers say about Him is true, than He's more of a disturbing, hateful Eldritch Abomination. Though perhaps they are accidentally following the wrong guy?
And Nero is actually quite wrong. Homosexual behavior is well-documented in animals, especially dolphins and birds.

Handy| 6.27.11 @ 1:41AM

Go dolphin yourself, idjit.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:54PM

Yeah. One that hates seeing children raped at age 9, and babies torn apart in the womb.

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 11:14AM

"Look at nature you would never see two male lions having sex."

Um, sorry to break this to you, Nero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....l_behavior

Look under "L"

:)

Nero69| 6.27.11 @ 11:40AM

Yeah thanks Mike mass or whatever your name is, only a small percentage of animals that perform Homo behaviors which parallels to the small fraction of sodomites in the world. Its funny how among gay men have a higher chance in cancer than normal men ha, I wonder why. Check it out:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/.....udy-finds/

Once again normal people have sane minds and these gays seem to not know the correct "wiring" for intimate relationships.

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 1:49PM

"Yeah thanks Mike mass or whatever your name is"

You're welcome!

"only a small percentage of animals that perform Homo behaviors which parallels to the small fraction of sodomites in the world"

How do you define a small percentage? According to the article: 'A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species'

Also you claim that there is only a small fraction of 'sodomites' in the world. If you're defining a 'sodomite' as someone who engages in sodomy, including heterosexual acts of sodomy, then I'm afraid your percentage will have to go up a category or two from 'small'.

Thank *you* for bringing my attention to that alarming study about cancer in gay men. I'm sure, being the compassionate individual you come across as, you'll be on the front lines raising awareness among gay men on the importance of HIV screening and prevention as well as early screening for the various type of cancer you mention.

Did you know that diabetes has a higher rate of prevalence among African Americans? Or that vitamin D deficiency occurs more among people who live in northern climates? Or, most shocking of all, that unwanted pregnancy has an exclusive prevalence among *heterosexuals*?

I'm sure you'll join me in helping to raise awareness about all of these important health concerns in our society. Or you could just go back to waving a judgmental finger at everyone unlike you. But that doesn't seem like your style. ;)

Nero69| 6.27.11 @ 3:32PM

Stop bringing in other issues and focus on the MAIN point. That Sodomy is an abomination in society. Its a shame to see a grown man acting like a Woman, dressing like a woman. Its just sad. It seems as if you are a staunch supporter which begs the question...ARE YOU GAY???? HMM I wonder....

Mikemass| 6.27.11 @ 3:56PM

"Stop bringing in other issues and focus on the MAIN point."

Translation: Don't cloud the issue with facts.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:55PM

Vitamin D deficiency is also quite common among the elderly in Florida. I'm too tired to snag the reference right now.

Jenny| 6.27.11 @ 11:03AM

So traditional marriages have been diminishing, while gay marriage has been illegal. How has gay marriage caused that then? If anything, your argument sounds like we should encourage marriage, gay or straight, in order to save marriage.

As someone who is happily married in a heterosexual relationship, I don't see how gay marriage "threatens" my marriage at all. If a marriage is healthy, it shouldn't be "threatened" by anyone else's marriage.

theo d| 6.27.11 @ 11:26AM

Your animus against gay marriage and its complexities expressed in AmSp would have more intellectual coherence if you first were to support very strong regulations or solutions against those who are most actively denigrating the wonderfulness of marriage and families. Why aren’t you vociferously proposing that society ban heterosexual divorce, criminalize heterosexual adultery, and ban their out-of-wedlock procreation? These acts are performed in vast numbers by the heterosexual majority. Doesn’t it make sense to first preserve the sanctity of marriage & family against this demographic horde? Why are you so worried about the small percent of the small percent of society's homosexuals that might want to marry? You aren’t proposing that society prevent their right to procreate. Yet. But a state-sanctioned property arrangement (i.e., marriage) scares you.

Your hand-wringing simply chooses to project the degradations of your own heterosexual tribe onto homosexuals while accusing them of giving society future troubles it can’t handle. Yours is a strange group that divorces >50% of the time and creates more single-parent households than any other group, yet demands a monopoly on an institution it sacralizes in theory but clearly not in practice. (Newt Gingrich, et alia.) I suggest that Expert Heterosexuals like you learn how to fix their own group’s troubles before telling other productive members of society what they have the right to do and not do. Until that happens, your worries come across as self-righteous bullying disguised as concern.

ps: I'm a certified, Constitutionally-inspired hetero. Pretty sure that Patrick Henry, John Adams, and their friends would agree with me if they weren't dead.

Gavin Greenwalt| 6.27.11 @ 2:05PM

So the problem with Gay Marriage is that they aren't planning on having children?

1) Then we should be proposing a requirement that all marrying couples pledge to attempt to have children at some point.
2) Gays can adopt, so not marrying them would mean they would be another family without a married couple for parents.
3) The most likely marriages to fail are those who are under 21, we should also be fighting to increase the marriage age (at least above 16 in some states).
4) Fertility Tests should be mandatory for all couples straight or gay.
5) Requirements for Divorce should be returned to that of "biblical standards" e.g. only in the case of infidelity.
6) Let's also increase the demands on fathers who impregnate women out of wedlock. If they impregnate someone, they have to marry them.
7) Increase access to birth control.

The problem you see is too much divorce and too much out of wedlock births. Your solution is... to deny gays the right to marry.

P.S. I will probably marry some day. No I will not most likely have children. Guess I'm destroying the institution of marriage--but there aint nothing you can do to stop me.

Bill| 6.27.11 @ 2:20PM

"the institution of marriage is -- so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed."

Those issues are the result of heterosexual behavior. So perhaps it is the freedoms and liberties of heterosexuals that need to be adjusted, and not those of their gay children?

Ray| 6.27.11 @ 6:28PM

Marriage is a creature of the middle class. As the middle class crumbles so does the number of successful marriages. The question is how do we get more Americans into the middle class?

pgbach| 6.27.11 @ 7:43PM

Sadly for the author, bigot days are still coming to an end in America. Take your bigotry to Iran where it belongs along with the whole white racist GOP.

Occam's Tool| 7.1.11 @ 5:57PM

Actually, the sharia days are coming, pgbach, and your President that YOU voted for is bringing them here. Have fun!

moray| 6.27.11 @ 10:56PM

Children will not be harmed by gay marriage. Let's examine research and prove what anti-gays are saying wrong. Also note, that "children" are completely irrelevant to gay marriage, because that issue is about gay adoption, which is not related.

http://www.livescience.com/607.....-show.html
"In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being."

http://www.magneticfire.com/2010/02/19/1119/
"Goldberg’s new book is the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970s to the present day. The research is consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents."

moray| 6.27.11 @ 10:57PM

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he.....usted-kids
"Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....091240.htm
"In a study published this month in the journal Demography, Rosenfeld concludes that children being raised by same-sex couples have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married heterosexual couples."

moray| 6.27.11 @ 10:57PM

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/

moray| 6.27.11 @ 10:57PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

moray| 6.27.11 @ 10:57PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

TJ Parker| 6.28.11 @ 9:36AM

What a long-winded non sequitur! Marriage has been in decline since 1970 and gay marriage in 2011 is responsible for this ... how? Letting *more* people marry is bad because ... ? If anything, adding stable lesbian marriages to the statistics will help to hide the shabbiness of heterosexual marriages.

David| 6.29.11 @ 2:27PM

"...its principal purpose, which is the care and raising of children." Sorry, but breeding offspring and having a "family" is not holy. I hate seeing the news warnings that the air is unsafe to breath and people should stay inside because there are too many people making to much pollution.

Stephen| 7.1.11 @ 12:30PM

"And the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to suffer from the political and cultural degradation of marriage."

A plea for conservatives to help people out of poverty and to invest in education? Nope.

Make Up Your Mind| 7.4.11 @ 6:37AM

The author first states that heterosexual marriages are NOT threatened by marriage equality, then follows it up by trying to link it to an increasing heterosexual divorce rate. Which is it? What could possibly be the point of this article if the author is not trying to say that gay couples getting married causes straights to be divorced?

mascabre| 7.5.11 @ 8:00AM

Children will not be harmed by gay marriage. Let's examine research and prove what anti-gays are saying wrong. Also note, that "children" are completely irrelevant to gay marriage, because that issue is about gay adoption, which is not related.

http://www.livescience.com/607.....-show.html
"In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being."

http://www.magneticfire.com/2010/02/19/1119/
"Goldberg’s new book is the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970s to the present day. The research is consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents."

mascabre| 7.5.11 @ 8:00AM

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he.....usted-kids
"Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....091240.htm
"In a study published this month in the journal Demography, Rosenfeld concludes that children being raised by same-sex couples have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married heterosexual couples."

mascabre| 7.5.11 @ 8:00AM

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/

mascabre| 7.5.11 @ 8:00AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

mascabre| 7.5.11 @ 8:01AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Jonathan| 7.6.11 @ 11:33AM

Thank you for the story. Twenty eight years of disrespect and alienation from family is horribly anti-family. There are too many similar stories, and these stories form a conclusive body of evidence in support of marriage equality. There is however no evidence of Mr. Guardiano's claim below.

"But what does this have to do with gay "marriage"? Everything. Sure, this breakdown in the family has occurred independent of the push for "marriage equality." But it is still part and parcel of an overarching effort to undermine and deprecate traditional marriage and the traditional family."

"Deprecate", Mr. Guardiano's word and "extend", what actually happens in the reality-based world have rather opposite meanings. When a same-sex couple marries, they do so for personal reasons - to form a family - just like other-sex couples. Do the editors of the American Spectator condone deception and lying?

yisong| 10.30.11 @ 10:13PM

single row four point contact ball slewing bearing . http://www.1stbearaing.com

Michael Ejercito| 12.26.11 @ 2:59PM

Why is the burden of proof on those who want to defend the definition of marriage, not on those who would change it?

ben| 1.22.12 @ 5:59PM

Do you realize that gays don't reproduce?

jrchambers| 3.2.12 @ 2:19PM

God is against homosexual marriage. He is also against hatred. Please do not call me a hater. It is a struggle to do God's will. We must try. He is our creator. We need to pray in Jesus' name. We need to pray seriously. Life is not some kind of game. We need to pray for all people. I am. Nobody can stop me. Nobody. SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT GOD'S WILL. IT IS NOT!

Bobby| 5.18.12 @ 3:38AM

I would say that same marriage is OK.