What’s next for defenders of marriage?

Wednesday’s Supreme Court rulings on marriage, while hardly unexpected by most traditional marriage advocates, have nonetheless left social conservatives disappointed. For supporters of traditional marriage, the saving grace of the rulings was that they did not apply to the 35 states with definition of marriage laws or constitutional amendments.

That situation is likely to change. If, as Justice Kennedy wrote in United States v. Windsor, a traditional marriage definition “violates basic due process and equal protection principles” then it is likely that future Supreme Court rulings will invalidate the right of the states to keep marriage between a man and a woman. This may come through a direct challenge to a state constitutional marriage amendment or through the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that states respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Barring a change in the balance of the Court, it is likely that the justices will continue to chip away at traditional marriage.

One possible response to the rulings would be to give up and move on. Polling shows substantial movement toward acceptance of gay marriage in recent years. A CNN/ORC poll from June 11-13 shows that 55 percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with 44 percent opposed. Ten years ago, 55 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 39 percent approved. Much of the change has come since Barack Obama was elected president.

Public opinion is not static, however, and the stakes are high. A 2012 study reported in Examiner found that the instability of gay families is more likely to cause children to experience depression, substance abuse, delinquency, sexual abuse, and a variety of other problems. Studies from Europe’s experience with gay marriage show that childbearing has become increasingly separated from marriage in those countries. This leads to more entitlements and government debt. Likewise, the cost of Social Security and benefit payments for gay partners cannot be accurately calculated, but may well be greater than the additional tax revenues the government will receive.

On another social issue, public opinion has reversed in recent years. In 2009, for the first time in more than a decade, more Americans considered themselves to be pro-life than pro-choice according to Gallup. A Gallup poll from May 2013, found that 48 percent of the country is pro-life and 45 percent pro-choice. As recently as 1995, pro-choice Americans had outnumbered pro-lifers by 23 percentage points (56 to 33 percent).

Even though Roe v. Wade still stands, states can tighten restrictions on abortion incrementally. Many states prohibit late term abortions and some states have effectively regulated abortion clinics out of business. No such incremental restriction would be likely if the Supreme Court decrees that gay marriage is the law of the land, so what logical course, other than voting for politicians who will appoint judges friendly to traditional marriage, can marriage supporters take?

Since definition of marriage statutes have proven less resilient than amendments, gay marriage proponents will likely target those states with lawsuits or attempt to pass their own legislation. Marriage supporters are also likely to attempt to pass additional definition of marriage amendments, even though state constitutions are vulnerable to federal judges.

A more permanent solution might be to resurrect the idea of a federal marriage amendment. An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage was attempted in the past, but failed. On June 26, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) announced his intention to reintroduce an amendment preserving traditional marriage.

According to the Constitution, an amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both the houses of Congress. This would require 288 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Currently the GOP controls the House with 234 seats, 54 short of the necessary majority. If the amendment passes the House, it is unlikely to succeed in the Senate where Democrats hold the majority. A Constitutional amendment does not have to be signed by the president.

The Constitution does provide an alternate means of proposing an amendment. Two-thirds of the states, 30 legislatures, can call a constitutional convention. This method has never been used to amend the Constitution.

In either case, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. This would require acceptance of the new amendment by 38 of the 50 states, a number very close to the number of states that already have marriage laws. With changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage, the outcome of an attempt to amend the Constitution could easily go either way, but the difficulty in amending the Constitution (there have been only 27 amendments in more than 200 years, the last in 1992) favors gay marriage advocates.

In Georgia, where a definition of marriage amendment passed with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2004, there is still strong support for traditional marriage. A Public Policy poll from December 2012 found that 65 percent of Georgians opposed same-sex marriage.

Although this week bore good news and celebrations for supporters of gay marriage, the issue is not yet decided for the majority of the country. The fight will almost certainly continue for both sides for years.

Originally published by National Elections Examiner

Ten myths about gay marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. This week the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on same sex marriage, either of which could conceivably make gay marriage the law of the land and strike down the definition of marriage laws in place in 37 states and the federal government.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, a North Carolina marriage amendment passed last year reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

It is evident that the original intent of the clause was not to engineer a back door way of forcing states to accept new laws. Instead, the clause was intended to allow the states to honor similar laws and proceedings in other states. To require a state to honor a marriage license between a same sex couple merely because one of a minority of states that permit those unions had issued the license is outside the bounds of the intent of the clause and would set a disturbing precedent that liberals would probably rather not follow through to other issues. For example, a majority of states have enacted “shall issue” laws for concealed gun carry permits. Perhaps blue states such as Illinois, Wisconsin, California and New York should be forced to allow these gun owners to exercise their right to carry when they travel.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

A 2012 a study seemed to confirm what many people already suspected. The New Family Structures Study, published in Social Science Research in July 2012, has one of the largest sample sizes of any study on the subject as well as improved methodology over previous studies. From more than 15,000 people, the author of the study, Mark Regnerus, found 175 people with mothers and 73 people with fathers who were in gay relationships for at least part of their childhood.

One surprising finding from the study was that Georgia has more children living with same-sex couples than any other state. In general, gay families live in the same places heterosexual families do. Gay families are not concentrated in homosexual meccas like San Francisco.

Not so surprising is the fact that gay families tend to be less stable than traditional families. Only two of the 175 children of lesbians reported spending their whole childhood with a single set of parents. None of the children of gay men spent their entire childhood with the same two parents. According to the study, only 57 percent of the children spent more than four months with the same lesbian parents. Only 23 percent had the same parents for three years.

This instability in the family leads to problems for the children. Regnerus said in Slate, “Such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, and report… more sexual victimization.”

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, biologically the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Homosexuality is genetic.

No one knows exactly why some people are homosexual. There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic. It may well be a combination of both “nature” and “nurture.” The increasing numbers of bisexuals seem to indicate that something other than genetics is at work.

The issue is not whether gay people can help being gay or whether they can be “cured” of homosexuality. The issue is whether a fundamental building block of society that rests on centuries of tradition should be reordered on a whim.

Myth #8: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #9: Same-sex marriage now has widespread acceptance.

A number of recent polls on Polling Report show that the nation is split over the issue. While most polls show advocates of same sex marriage with the advantage, polls often seem to overstate the popularity of redefining marriage. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent. One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue.

It was only in 2012 that a majority of voters finally endorsed same-sex marriage. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. In contrast, the votes that approved gay marriage in Maryland and Maine were very close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 31 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman. Six more states define marriage by statute. Only nine states and the District of Columbia do and in most of those states the law changed by judges.

Myth #10: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to be talking about same-sex marriage. The most important issues that we face are the economy and the likelihood that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. President Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to rally a base that is disillusioned by the president’s poor performance on economic issues.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/list/ten-myths-about-the-gay-marriage-debate?cid=db_articles

Studies on families should impact SCOTUS marriage decision

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether same sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution. Along with whether the ability to marry anyone you choose is indeed a constitutional right, one of the issues that the justices must consider in answering this question is the question of what is best for children.

As the small number of same-sex families increased, several studies were done on the issue. Proponents of same-sex marriage have claimed that such studies have shown that gay families fare as well or better than heterosexual parents. Breakpoint quotes an American Psychological Association statement that says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” According to the New Republic, the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision striking down California’s definition of marriage law says, “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.” In truth, the evidence so far has been inconclusive, but two recent studies shed doubt on these claims.

Last year a study seemed to confirm what many people already suspected. The New Family Structures Study, published in Social Science Research in July 2012, has one of the largest sample sizes of any study on the subject as well as improved methodology over previous studies. From more than 15,000 people, the author of the study, Mark Regnerus, found 175 people with mothers and 73 people with fathers who were in gay relationships for at least part of their childhood.

One surprising finding from the study was that Georgia has more children living with same-sex couples than any other state. In general, gay families live in the same places heterosexual families do. Gay families are not concentrated in homosexual meccas like San Francisco.

Not so surprising is the fact that gay families tend to be less stable than traditional families. Only two of the 175 children of lesbians reported spending their whole childhood with a single set of parents. None of the children of gay men spent their entire childhood with the same two parents. According to the study, only 57 percent of the children spent more than four months with the same lesbian parents. Only 23 percent had the same parents for three years.

This instability in the family leads to problems for the children. Regnerus said in Slate, “Such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, and report… more sexual victimization.”

Unsurprisingly, the Regnerus study has sparked criticism. Writing in Slate, William Saletan points out that the study followed children of gay parents before same sex marriage was legal in any U.S. state. Saletan also argues that because they were not part of families with two gay parents who decided to have children, the people from the study “aren’t the products of same-sex households. They’re the products of broken homes.” Of course, it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to have children of their own without medical intervention.

Regnerus’ study is somewhat supported by a new study released earlier this month by Third Way, a self-proclaimed moderate think tank. The study, “Wayward Sons,” supports the idea that boys “seem to suffer” in single parent households without a male role model. While the study does not directly address same-sex marriage, it underscores the fact that there are differences between the genders and that children need positive role models of the same gender. Two mothers or two fathers do not seem to be equivalent to a mother and a father.

As Doug Mainwaring points out in the Public Discourse, “Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.” Mainwaring, a gay man who became a father in a heterosexual marriage, says that reason and experience rather than religion and tradition led him to two unexpected conclusions. First, he says, “Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman.” Second, he argues that “denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.”

At this point, the evidence of the impact of same sex marriage on children and society at large is inconclusive. If the Supreme Court leaves the matter in the hands of Congress and the states, there will be ample data for future studies on the impact of same sex marriage and parenting. Currently, nine states and the District of Columbia permit marriage between same sex couples, many of whom are undoubtedly raising children. If new data supports the findings of these recent studies that children, especially boys, really do need both a father and a mother, the societal implications of the Supreme Court’s decision could be earthshaking.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/recent-family-studies-may-impact-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decision?cid=db_articles

Nine myths about same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. Three weeks ago, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The next day, President Obama reversed his support for traditional marriage and returned to a previously stated position that same-sex couples should be granted the right to marry. Now a decision by a federal appeals court in Boston has thrust the issue into the headlines once again.

The ruling by the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals found Section Three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman, to be unconstitutional. The Court did not address Section Two, which stipulates that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Court stayed its own ruling pending appeal which will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, the North Carolina amendment reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The ruling will require states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the biological possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #8: Same-sex marriage is growing in acceptance.

There is some polling support for this idea, but it is far from proven. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent.

One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue. For whatever reason, a majority of voters has never endorsed same-sex marriage, even in blue states like California and Oregon. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 38 states do not recognize same-sex marriage. Only 12 do.

Myth #9: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to spend this election season talking about same-sex marriage. The central issue to the 2012 election is the economy and whether President Obama’s handling of it merits extending his contract for another four years.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/nine-myths-about-the-same-sex-marriage-debate

Support for same-sex marriage may be overstated

(Wing/Wikimedia Commons)

Over the past year, defenders of traditional marriage have suffered a series of setbacks.  In August 2010, a federal judge struck down California’s definition of marriage amendment as had happened in a handful of other states.  Just before Christmas, Congress voted to repeal the “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays to serve openly in the military.  In February 2011, Attorney General Holder announced that the Obama Administration would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in federal court.  King and Spalding, the Atlanta law firm selected by Congress to defend the law, withdrew from the case in April under pressure from gay rights activist groups.

The trend led Jim Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, to tell “World Magazine” in early June that “We're losing on that one [gay marriage], especially among the 20- and 30-somethings….”  Daly went on to say, “We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.”

Daly’s words were prescient.  A few weeks later, New York became the third state to enact gay marriage legislatively, rather than by judicial fiat (after Vermont and New Hampshire).  The law was primarily supported by Democrats although four Republicans crossed the aisle to allow it to pass.

The trend was seemingly supported by a Gallup poll in May 2011 that indicated that, for the first time, a majority of Americans supported gay marriage.  The Gallup poll asked the question, “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”  By a margin of 53-45 percent, respondents said that they believed that same-sex marriages should be recognized.  In the previous poll taken in May 2010, respondents opposed recognizing same-sex marriage by 53-44 percent.

In June 2011, however, a new survey was released that contrasted sharply with Gallup’s findings.  The new poll asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement:  “I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”  Sixty-two percent of respondents agreed with the statement, including 53 percent who strongly agreed.  Only thirty-five percent disagreed.

The new survey was commissioned by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, and carried out by Public Opinion Strategies.  The ADF-POS poll has a larger sample size (1,500 vs. 1,018 for Gallup) and a smaller margin of error (2.53 percent vs. four percent for Gallup) than May’s Gallup poll.  The question in the ADF-POS poll is also arguably much more simple and straightforward than Gallup’s question.

In a press release, ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said, “Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society.  The union between husband and wife benefits society--especially children--in unique ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized this universally defined ideal as the best way to promote healthy, natural families for the good of future generations.”

Gene Ulm, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies and director of the survey, noted, “These numbers are not surprising.  More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all—63 percent of total voters--have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Ironically, the 63 percent margin in the poll is almost exactly the same as the percentage of Americans who have cast ballots in favor of traditional marriage over the years.  It also represents an almost two-to-one preference for traditional marriage.  When Georgia voters considered a defense of marriage amendment in 2004, it passed with 76 percent voting in favor.

At present, only six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York) and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  California’s defense of marriage amendment was overturned, but same-sex marriage is not legal pending the appeal.  Additionally, Rhode Island and Maryland recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey allow same-sex civil unions.  Most of the remaining states either have laws or constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/public-support-for-gay-marriage-may-be-overstated"> 

Meet the candidates: Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich (Gage Skidmore)

Newt Gingrich is a transplanted Georgian who was born and grew up in Pennsylvania.  Born in 1943, his birth name was Newton Leroy McPherson.  His mother and father divorced after a marriage of only a few days.  Newt’s mother remarried to a career army officer, Robert Gingrich, in 1946.  Gingrich adopted Newt and the couple had three daughters.

The family moved frequently as the senior Gingrich received new assignments.  Newt graduated from high school in Columbus, Ga. in 1961.  He graduated from Emory University with a B.A. in history in 1965.  He earned a Master’s and Ph.D. in modern European history from Tulane, graduating in 1971.  After earning his doctorate, Gingrich returned to Georgia, where he taught at West Georgia College in Carrollton from 1970 to 1978. 

Gingrich’s political career began with campaigns for congress in Georgia’s sixth district in 1974 and 1976.  He narrowly lost those races to Democrat Jack Flynt, but won in 1978 when Flynt decided not to seek re-election.  Gingrich served in the House of Representatives until 1998.  He was elected Minority Whip in 1989 to succeed Dick Cheney, who resigned to become Secretary of Defense.  In 1994, in the wake of the Republican landslide, Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House when Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Il.) did not seek re-election to congress.

Gingrich was largely responsible for the Contract with America that led to the 1994 Republican landslide.  During his tenure as speaker, Gingrich oversaw the passage of welfare reform, tax cuts (including the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history), and pushed for a balanced budget under President Clinton.  The budget was balanced in 1999 for the first time since 1969.  Gingrich’s reform agenda is a major reason for the economic boom of the 1990s.

Gingrich was also involved in the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996.  In a situation similar to the one faced today, the Republicans refused to raise the debt limit when Democrats balked at budget cuts.  Ultimately, the shutdowns resulted in the deal to balance the budget, but Gingrich suffered politically from comments that made it seem that he shut down the government in response to a snub from President Clinton.  After Republicans lost the presidential election and eight house seats in 1996, Gingrich resigned from Congress. 

Since leaving Congress, he has served on the Defense Policy Board for President George W. Bush and the United States Commission on National Security/21^st Century.  He also teaches the Joint Warfighting Course to Major Generals at the Air University and is a Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University.  In 2003, he founded the Center for Health Transformation to create free market health care reforms.  In 2007, he founded American Solutions, a conservative think-tank and action group.  Gingrich has also written a number of books on topics ranging from history to government policy to fictional alternate history.  After leaving Congress, he moved from Georgia to McLean, Va. where he currently resides.

There are several skeletons in Newt Gingrich’s closet.  In 1992, Gingrich was one of more than 450 congressmen who bounced checks written on the house bank.  The house bank covered the overdrafts, but many congressmen had thousands of dollars that were overdue for months.  Gingrich was not singled out by the Ethics Committee and was one of the Republican congressmen who decided to go public with the scandal, realizing that more Democrats would be affected than Republicans.

While he was in Congress, Gingrich also taught a course at Kennesaw State College in Kennesaw, Ga., an Atlanta suburb.  The course, titled “Renewing American Civilization,” led to an ethics charge and an investigation by the IRS.  The House Ethics Committee found no wrongdoing, but Gingrich did pay a fine for conflicting statements filed by his attorneys.  The Kennesaw State Foundation’s tax-exempt status was threatened after accepting $200,000 to televise Gingrich’s course across the country.  The foundation was exonerated after Gingrich resigned.

In 2008, Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi, another now former house speaker, to make a commercial advocating green energy to halt climate change.  In the past three years, Gingrich seems to have retreated somewhat on the issue.  A video on the New Hampshire Primary blog shows Gingrich saying “a topic large enough to change the behavior of the entire human race is a topic that is more than science and deserves public hearings with very tough minded public questions and we’ve had almost none of that on either side.”

Newt’s personal life may also be a problem for many prospective voters.  He married for the first time at nineteen to his former geometry teacher who was twenty-six at the time.  Six months after the 1980 divorce, Gingrich remarried.  Gingrich admitted to having an affair with Callista Bisek, a house staffer, during his second marriage.  He divorced for the second time in 2000 and married Bisek shortly after. 

In a 2011 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich admitted that his actions were wrong:  “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness.”

Gingrich has also run into two problems since announcing his candidacy this year.  In the first, he angered conservatives when he referred to Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan as “right-wing social engineering.”  Gingrich apologized to Ryan and tried to repair the damage, but his comments probably did not endear him to Tea Partiers or deficit hawks.

Secondly, in early June, Gingrich’s entire senior campaign staff resigned.  The resignations came in the wake of Gingrich’s two-week cruise in the Greek isles.  The staff members reportedly were concerned that Gingrich did not take the campaign seriously.  The departure of his staff will likely affect Gingrich’s ability to raise campaign funds, since many potential donors will seriously question his ability to win if he isn’t supported by his own employees.

The most recent Real Clear Politics index of polls shows Gingrich in statistical tie for fifth place with Ron Paul.  He currently trails Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Rudolf Giuliani, and fellow Georgian Herman Cain.  Most of the current polls do not reflect the public reaction to the resignation of Gingrich’s staff.  An Insider Advantage/WSB-TV poll of Georgia voters in early June showed Gingrich in third place behind Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann.

Very few doubt Newt Gingrich’s intelligence and ability to make policy, but if he is to survive the primary season he has major obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is to replace his entire staff in the middle of the campaign.  Gingrich’s missteps and gaffes make it unlikely that he will win the contest to face Barack Obama in 2012, but he would be a valuable advisor and strategist to the eventual Republican nominee.

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-newt-gingrich"> 

Click SUBSCRIBE to follow the Captain Kudzu.  Please COMMENT, LIKE, and SHARE across your networks!