Maine4Marriage: A non-religious, social science, and legal scholarship defense for traditional marriage.
- Login to post comments
The mission of Maine4Marriage is to warn Mainers of the many threats posed to our state and society by the ballot initiative in the upcoming election that would radically redefine the critically important institution of marriage by allowing homosexuals to marry in Maine and to urge voters to reject it.
On this site, we have posted the compelling social science research data and legal analysis that demonstrates the many essential benefits man/woman marriage provides to society and why we must not radically redefine it. For millennia and across all cultures, traditional man/woman marriage has been the essential foundation of all successful societies. We believe that preserving it is the single most important issue of our day now being debated in the public square and we are working to help all Mainers understand why.
Our defense of marriage is simply that: the defense of traditional man/woman marriage. That defense is based entirely on social science findings, legal scholarship and the lessons of history. It is not based on any religious beliefs. The material posted here offers irrefutable evidence that redefining marriage as some activists are demanding would be a radical social experiment inevitably accompanied by many negative consequences for society and future generations.
We harbor no ill will towards any individuals or groups. But we are determined to defend marriage against any and all who seek to radically redefine it regardless of their claimed motivations.
We urge you to carefully review this overwhelmingly compelling evidence in support of preserving the natural man/woman definition of marriage and join us in defending this vital cornerstone of our society.
"No one, they assured us, would require Catholic or other foster care and adoption services to place children in same-sex headed households. No one, they said, would require religiously affiliated schools and social-service agencies to treat same-sex partners as spouses, or impose penalties or disabilities on those that dissent. No one would be fired from his or her job (or suffer employment discrimination) for voicing support for conjugal marriage or criticizing same-sex sexual conduct and relationships. And no one was proposing to recognize polyamorous relationships or normalize “open marriages,” nor would redefinition undermine the norms of sexual exclusivity and monogamy in theory or practice.
That was then; this is now." Read Robert P. George's full article at http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=95
The social institution of marriage is universal and transcends religion or government. It would be vastly helpful to the discussion if everyone understood what a social institution is and how it functions in a cultural society. "When the disappearing social institution is marriage, what is left is a motley crew of lifestyles, and a lifestyle is to an institution what a plain sheet of paper is to a $1000 bill." Marriage, Fundamental Premises, and the California, Connecticut, and Iowa Supreme Courts, Monte N. Stewart
It would be pretty remarkable, don't you think, if redefining the foundational institution of man-woman marriage to that of gender-less marriage did not create conflict, confusion, and unintended consequences.
Marriage, Fundamental Premises
Marriage, Fundamental Premises, and the California, Connecticut, and Iowa Supreme Courts
Monte Neil Stewart, Jacob D. Briggs, and Julie Slater
The highest courts in California, Connecticut, and Iowa recently held that that the constitutional norm of equality requires the redefinition of marriage from “the union of a man and a woman” to “the union of any two persons.” The argument leading to that holding, like all arguments, proceeds from premises that the argument does not prove but that serve as the starting point for reasoning. Those premises range from the nature of contemporary American marriage to the equivalence of the pre- and post-redefinition marriage institutions, to the social costs, if any, resulting from redefinition, and to marriage’s relationship with other social institutions such as law and religion.
This Article critically examines the common fundamental premises underlying the California, Connecticut, and Iowa opinions. That critical examination leads to serious questions regarding those premises’ validity. Indeed, that examination demonstrates their falsity. At the same time, it clarifies their materiality; that is, it shows that, but for the cases’ fundamental premises, no line of judicial reasoning can lead to their holding.
http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/pdf/FundamentalPremises.pdf
Below is our most recent Press Release.
Please visit www.Maine4Marriage.org (IN THE NEWS) for other important information regarding this issue including my response to the PPH inquiry as to how I would rate the interview/article experience I had with with Ms. Cover on July 13, 2012.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
August 9, 2012 Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 9, 2012
Same-sex Marriage Advocates Challenged on Misrepresentations
Portland. Maine4Marriage president Miriam Conners has challenged Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, to substantiate their claim that their proposed same-sex marriage law provides any protections for churches Or religious organizations that would refuse to recognize same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If he and his campaign cannot cite such language in the proposed law, she calls on him to publicly acknowledge that they have misrepresented its provisions. The challenge was issued in a letter sent to McTighe today. (Attached below.)
"We are calling on you to either substantiate or retract what we believe to be a very significant specific misrepresentation you personally made in your July 26th press release, 'Mainers United Applauds Improved Ballot Question,'" Conners wrote. "In this release you state that 'The new [ballot] question makes it clear that the proposed law is about civil marriage and that no church or religious institution can be sued for refusing to recognize or perform a marriage that goes against its beliefs.'" (Emphasis added.) "One does not have to be an attorney to conclude from a simple reading of its provisions that your claim that the proposed law protects churches and religious institutions that refuse to 'recognize' homosexual marriages is absolutely false."
In her letter to McTighe, Conners also noted that one of the FAQ answers on the Mainers United for Marriage Web site makes the same claim. "This shows that McTighe's claim is not a simple misstatement," she notes. In her letter, Conners also explained that McTighe's misrepresentation has very significant legal implications. She noted that nationally recognized legal experts point out that "it is the lack of language specifically protecting these organizations from having to 'recognize' same-sex marriages that will result in much of the erosion of religious freedom where it is legalized."
"We believe that Maine voters deserve to have both sides of this referendum question debate presented accurately and honestly," Conners wrote. "If you agree, and cannot cite the specific provisions in your proposed law that you claim provide any protection for churches and religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages on religious grounds, then we believe that you have no choice but to immediately and publicly retract and clarify this misrepresentation. If you refuse to do so, we and many Mainers will consider this to be an admission that you and your organization are in fact engaging in a campaign to mislead Maine voters on major and important issues related to your proposed law."
Note to editors: The letter to McTighe is attached below. The pertinent section of the proposed law is also attached.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Religious Exemption section of proposed same-sex marriage law
Religious exemption.This chapter does not require any member of the clergy to perform or any church, religious denomination or other religious institution to host any marriage in violation of the religious beliefs of that member of the clergy, church, religious denomination or other religious institution. The refusal to perform or host a marriage under this subsection cannot be the basis for a lawsuit or liability and does not affect the tax-exempt status of the church, religious denomination or other religious institution.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
August 9, 2012
Matt McTighe, Campaign Manager
Mainers United for Marriage
Dear Mr. McTighe,
We have previously written to your organization expressing our concern about why the same-sex marriage law you are advocating is so deficient in providing any real protection for religious freedom in Maine. We have also expressed our objections to what are clearly continuing misrepresentations by the advocates of this proposed law about its provisions regarding religious freedom. (See my July 7, 2012 letter to Betsy Smith.)http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/pdf/Betsy_Smith_Letter_7_12_2012.pdf
In this context we are calling on you to either substantiate or retract what we believe to be a very significant specific misrepresentation you personally made in your July 26 press release ("Mainers United Applauds Improved Ballot Question"). In this release you state that "The new question makes it clear that the proposed law is about civil marriage and that no church or religious institution can be sued for refusing to recognize or perform a marriage that goes against its beliefs." (Emphasis added.) One does not have to be an attorney to conclude from a simple reading of its provisions that your claim that the proposed law protects churches and religious institutions for refusing to "recognize" homosexual marriages is absolutely false.
The language in the proposed same-sex marriage law refers only to "performing or hosting" a marriage, actions which are related to the actual marriage ceremony itself. Falsely claiming that it somehow protects churches and religious organizations from having to recognize same-sex marriages is not an insignificant misrepresentation. Indeed, as the analysis provided to the Maryland legislature by a number of nationally recognized legal experts in the field made clear (http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/pdf/maryland.pdf), it is the lack of language specifically protecting these organizations from having to "recognize" same-sex marriages that will result in much of the erosion of religious freedom where it is legalized. Among the likely negative impacts for churches and religious organizations these legal experts cite are loss or ineligibility for government contracts or grants, problems with obtaining government licenses, being forced to employ people who violate their organization's religious beliefs, being required to provide same-sex spousal benefits in violation of their religious beliefs, being forced to include same-sex couples in religiously based marriage promotion programs or counseling services, possible loss of state or local tax exemption, and others.
As I am sure you know, while no state provides all the protections for religious freedoms that legal experts recommend, a number do provide at least some protections for the refusal of churches and religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriage in violation of their religious beliefs. For example, New York, the District of Columbia and New Hampshire provide protections from having to include or promote same-sex marriage in counseling programs, retreats, or marriage courses. New Hampshire and New York specifically protect them from having to provide housing to same-sex couples in housing specifically designated for married individuals. Vermont and New Hampshire specifically allow religiously affiliated organizations such as the Knights of Columbus to limit insurance coverage to heterosexual married couples. Connecticut allows religiously affiliated adoption and foster care agencies to limit placement of children to heterosexual couples if they do not accept any governmental funding. The Maryland analysis referred to above provides additional examples where at least some protection is provided in law for churches and religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in these states.
We challenge you to identify the language in your proposed law that supports your claim that there is any protection for a church or religious organization that would refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in Maine if it became law.
If you cannot point to such specific protective language we call upon you to immediately issue a clear public retraction and clarification of this very significant misrepresentation of the provisions in this proposed law. In addition, we call on you and on the campaign you are managing to not make such claims in the future.
We also note that the FAQ section of your Web site makes a similar claim that the proposed law would protect churches and religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, demonstrating that your quote in the press release was not a simple misstatement. In the interest of being completely honest with Maine voters, this misleading answer and any other misrepresentations must be removed as well.
We believe that Maine voters deserve to have both sides of this referendum question debate presented accurately and honestly. If you agree and cannot cite the specific provisions in your proposed law that you claim provide any protection for churches and religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages on religious grounds, then we believe that you have no choice but to immediately and publicly retract and clarify this misrepresentation. If you refuse to do so, we and many Mainers will consider this to be an admission that you and your organization are in fact engaging in a campaign to mislead Maine voters on major and important issues related to your proposed law.
I look forward to your early response.
Sincerely,
Miriam Conners
President
Miriam, welcome to the AMG forum!
:)
August 23, 2012 Press Release
Maine4Marriage
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Miriam Conners, Miriam@Maine4Marriage.org
August 23, 2012
Some Groups Position that Will Undermine Religious Freedom in Maine Challenged to Re-think Support
PORTLAND - Maine4Marriage has contacted selected member groups of the Mainers United for Marriage coalition pointing out to them that the proposed same-sex marriage law they are supporting would undermine religious freedom in Maine and urging them to withdraw their support.
"We provided them with information that summarizes legal scholarship and analysis that shows beyond any doubt that passage of this bill will undermine the religious freedom of all Mainers," Miriam Conners, Maine4Marriage president explained. "We also provided them with a side-by-side comparison (attached below) illustrating that the proposed Maine law is significantly less protective of religious freedom than same-sex marriage laws that have recently been passed by five other states and the District of Columbia."
Letters are being sent initially to the pro-same sex marriage coalition members which are actually Maine based and have mission statements that are broader than simply supporting same-sex related issues. The first group of letters has been sent to ACLU of Maine, Maine League of Women Voters, Maine Children's Alliance, Maine Psychological Association, Planned Parenthood of Maine and the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination.
In her letter to the groups, Conners noted that "We believe that it is probably not entirely your fault that you are supporting a proposed law that is so harmful to one of our fundamental freedoms in Maine. The same-sex marriage activists who are pushing this proposed law have fundamentally and apparently intentionally misrepresented its provisions to the public (and no doubt to your organization as well) by falsely claiming that it would in fact protect religious freedom in Maine."
"While we might have wished they had done a more thorough job in looking at both sides of the same-sex marriage debate before taking a position on this fatally flawed proposed law, we hope that these current coalition members will agree with leaders ranging from President Obama to the leaders of virtually all faith communities that religious freedom is one of those fundamental freedoms that must be protected at all costs," Conners said. "No matter what position one might have on same-sex marriage, protecting this fundamental freedom must take precedence."
Note to editors: The basic side by side comparison of the proposed Maine law and other state's laws sent to these groups is attached below. The actual state laws are posted on the Maine4Marriage web site.
Reminder to editors: Maine4Marriage has previously issued to related press releases. One dealt with the letter sent to Equality Maine chair Betsy Smith pointing out the misrepresentations her group is making about their proposed law and asking why the language related to religious freedom is so deficient. It is available here. A second one relates to a particularly blatant misrepresentation the language in the proposed law related to religious freedom. It is available here.
We've provided an additional link to the side-by-side comparison mentioned above.
Below you will find links to copies of the letters that were sent to the various organizations mentioned in this press release.
http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=98
League of Women Voters Chapters
Maine Childrens Alliance
ACLU of Maine
Planned Parenthood of Maine
Psychological Association Maine
Religious Coalition Against Discrimination
A side by side comparison of the laws from six other states, the District of Columbia, and Maine's proposed law can be found here:
A National Lesbian Activist Reveals what is
Really at Stake in Maine!
Below is a portion of a transcript of a very revealing video made by Mary Bonauto, a leading national lesbian activist (and a Maine resident!).
She explains why massive amounts of outside money and hundreds of activists from away are flooding into Maine to try to pass Question 1, the proposed same-sex marriage law on the ballot in November. Bonauto made these comments in a September, 2012 video fundraising appeal to members of LPAC, a national lesbian “super PAC” (political action committee), to contribute to the campaign to pass Question 1 on the November ballot in Maine. You can try to view the video here. We expect they will take it down at any time, however, so we have preserved it.
Here is what Bonauto said:
“… A victory in Maine would extend far beyond our New England borders. For the first time ever, our community will be on the offense in seeking marriage equality at the ballot, rather than playing defense when our opponents try to strip it away…
A victory in Maine will prove to those 31 States with marriage amendments, that voters can, and in some states will, change their hearts and minds to support marriage equality even if they voted against it before. We need to put those amendment states back into play for the movement…
A victory in Maine would bring all of us one critical step closer to federal recognition of (same-sex) marriages and to (same-sex) marriage nationwide… (Clarification added in parentheses.)
This is an incredible opportunity to make history.”
So who is Mary Bonauto and why does she know what she is talking about?
Mary Bonauto is one of the nation’s leading lesbian “rights” activists. An attorney, Bonauto is currently the Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders), a leading litigating group on gay and lesbian issues. Among other lesbian lawsuits she has been involved with, she was one of the lead attorneys in filing the Vermont lawsuit that led to the first civil unions law in the U.S. She was the lead attorney in the Massachusetts lawsuit that resulted in the legalizing of same-sex marriage in that state. In 2010 Yale University awarded Bonauto its Brudner Prize honoring an individual as "an accomplished scholar or activist whose work has made significant contributions to the understanding of LGBT issues or furthered the tolerance of LGBT people." She has long been a leader and spokesperson for the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine.
Prepared by Maine4Marriage.org
In the end, it is going to work out almost exactly the same as when Don't Ask, Don't Tell went away.
Chris:
The biggest difference is that the demise of DADT generated some benefit for the nation. The second difference is that it eliminated a legal disability unique to homosexual persons.
"Gay marriage" does nuttin' positive (but, I concede, little negative) for nonparticipants.
Geesh John, tell me you won't be glad it's done with after November.
And as a close-to-the-issue non-participant, I'll be happy some close friends are really happy about the vote.
Me to Chris lots of friends and family hope marriage stays the way it is and will be some happy when we win, extremely happy.
Marriage will be staying the way it is for you and your friends, Islander. It's a win- win.
Not if homosexuals have their bigoted way. They do not want equality of marriage for all , to bad they are so closed minded. Just leave the definition of marriage alone, and if and when the homosexuals want a civil union then give it to them and any other groups that care to form a civil union.
I enjoyed this and didn't know where else to post it:
Althouse What's Happened to Humor?
"For me, being gay was about wanting to do the opposite of the straight world, ... the last thing I would like in the entire world would be to go through cocktailing my sperm with my boyfriend and finding some grim couple in Ohio who are gluten-free and who you pay $75,000 to have your baby. To me it feels absolutely hideous."
Some things in life are different and for various reasons unattainable by some due to many reasons most of which are just the way it is .
Ferrais and Ford Focuses are both cars , they are different beyond that .Man and women are a marriage, Man man ,women women both human beings,but different!
Marriage is one of those things .There is absolutely no reason to redefine it.
My question is why didn't the very intelligent gay marriage activists in Maine add language to the bill that would protect, to some or any degree, the religious freedom of their citizens beyond what is already protected by the first amendment, when they knew that other states who have passed same sex marriage did indeed add protective language? (not nearly what has been advised by nationally recognized legal experts.. but some protection at least) Why is that question getting the deep freeze from the media in Maine? The same sex activists either left protective language out by design or they did not think to put it in. In either case, the bill is fatally flawed, and should be scrubbed. If they want to try again, then they have that right. But Maine voters have a right to know the truth about the language and what it does and does not protect. And by the way... yes the bill would redefine marriage. Get the facts at www.Maine4Marriage.org view our side by side comparison at: http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=97
So what you are saying is religious organizations ought to have special rights beyond those spelled out in the Constitution?
You did write that your defense of traditional marriage is not based on religious beliefs, right?
Chris, have you had a chance to read the materials posted on Maine4Marriage? I'm not a legal expert myself or a social scientist. What I'm endeavoring to do is help voters like yourself become aware of what the experts are saying and what the media is not reporting with regard to this issue. It is quite clear to anyone who has visited my website that there are no religious or partisan arguments made there. Religious freedom, which experts on both sides of this issue say is in jeopardy, protects believer and non-believer alike. Same sex marriage activists have made the claim that legalizing marriage in Maine would not redefine marriage. One would be hard pressed to find a respected expert anywhere in the world who would agree with that. Citizens exercising their freedom of conscience is not a special right.
Anybody who thinks that "this will be over in November" (assuming the homosexual marriage provision is passed) is very wrong. The homosexual activists will not allow themselves to be out of a job. And this ceased being about "equality" a long time ago--it's now about domination and revenge.
Gay marriage in Maine will be finalized in November. Obama will probably work DOMA like he did DADT in the next few years.
The social experiment in the states where gay marriage is legal and DADT is showing fears are without merit. Remember all the landlord problems that were going to bloom when the discrimination question passed?
Nobody's gonna get roughed up.
You all get to marry just like the old days.
If there is any percent of a population that does not /support/believe it legitimate, the homosexual life style etc.etc. there will always be activists to carry on the cause.
Because it is nothing more than legitimacy they strive for and it must come from everyone ! Whether those against hold their beliefs privately or not .
If partnerships are not enough why are there numerous hetero. couples who co habitat together w/ out the benefit of marriage in long term partnershipsand profess to be very happy?
Good or bad, Maine has voted on this a number of times before and said no. Mainer's even went so far as to collect enough signatures to force a revote after the government passed marriage equality through the house by passing the people all together.
Seems to me the liberals were screaming about the number of times the right brought TABOR to the voting booth. When will this fight be over? Simple answer, never, even if it passes.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-ch-vid&v=Us6Uzs_Yhq0
Remember what they did to Don Mendell even before we were required to call it marriage? It is easy to see the consequences of genderless marriage will be certain for those who dare to disagree.
Remember all the landlord problems that were going to bloom when the discrimination question passed?
Not according to the actual landlords, some of whom I'd been representing. The stereotype is that they'd redecorate the joint better than they found it.
Nobody's gonna get roughed up.
Correct. That'll only happen if it does NOT pass.
Obama will probably work DOMA like he did DADT in the next few years.
Even money if he does it like that, or like "Dream Act Lite" / "Fast and Furious". The latter method simply involves ignoring the law and telling the exec. branch employees what to do instead of obeying and enforcing the law.
PS: While I think SSM is silly, I do not think it is evil. If it passes, I'll perform the ceremonies.
I think it's fine that Representative Fitts has change his mind and is now supporting the radical redefinition of marriage. He certainly has that right. I do have some questions though as to how he came to this newly found opinion. Please review the following FaceBook conversation as it will give insight into Representative Fitts' thought processes on the matter using his own words. I am still waiting to hear from Representative Fitts as I have asked him to define his use of the word “detractors” used in his statement, "I have read though much of what you present, which honestly has an equal number of detractors..." I also would be interested in knowing who those "detractors" are and their credentials. And finally, if I have the opportunity, I would also like to ask Representative Fitts to defend his statement that legalizing same sex marriage is not redefinition, and this in reference to and assuming he did indeed read the materials I provided to him.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Week of October 7, FaceBook conversation:
Miriam Conners: I rarely hear an honest debate focusing on the rights of children. It is only when people compassionately and unselfishly view life through the eyes of the child, that we will see clearly on this issue. Marriage is the social institution that protects the rights of the child. Marriage has a purpose far beyond adult aspiration. Everyone knows that many marriages do not go well, and not every marriage produces offspring, but that does not negate the purpose of marriage to protect the rights of children who, most of the time, are born to a natural mother and father. Every child who is born has a right to an ideal start if at all possible. It is interesting to me that most people are very interested in ideals for themselves. The ideal house, car, vacation, physical body, education and so forth and feel certain that they have a right to pursue that ideal. The most serious negative consequence of legalizing same sex marriage is that it strips, by law, the societal mechanism that protects children’s rights to begin life, so far as is humanly possible, in the association of the two people who gave them life. How can we have a discussion about civil rights if we do not acknowledge that children have a right to the love and association and yes, marriage of their very own natural biological mother and father? I realize that many people choose to be irresponsible with regard to the health and well being of their children. And everyone knows that adoption is societies compassionate response to a child’s tragedy.
But legalizing same sex marriage will , by design, demand that some children will miss this right and blessing. No one wants to talk about the children. And it’s pretty easy to push them aside… because they aren't here yet.
Stacey Fitts: Using this logic, I guess your preference would be to require parents of children to marry, no matter the circumstances... You would apparently also not allow non-married single people to adopt, given that this is a less than an optimal parenting situation in your mind. You also, I assume are pro-life, which means there would certainly be a large number of babies born to less then loving homes... What is to be done with those children if there are not enough male/female married households willing to care for them? As best I can tell from reading this, you would MANDATE that everyone be a happy loving home of hetero parents. By the way there is no mandate for marriage being proposed ... nor is there a mandate for anyone to have any kids adoptive or natural. Of course, the gay and lesbian couples out there that already have kids, but are not able to be married would be somehow interfered with in your design as well... I often hear in Republican circles that central planning and government intervention is a problem of the Democrats. I think the hypocracy in your statements above is an indication to me that the snake has caught its tail...
Bob Emrich: Stacey - all of this issues are not on the ballot. Redefining marriage is! Vote NO on question one.
Stacey Fitts: I wasn't the one that brought these issues up, that is what is implied in all of what was presented above regarding children. No one is redefining marriage. My marriage will be the same on Nov. 7, 2012 as it was on Mar 17, 1985. It is not threatened by others who love each other doing exactly what my wife and I were able to do then. In fact I think the institution will be strengthened by the fact that people who love eachother will be able to affirm that and make a legal committment to be partners for life. If you choose to not celebrate that in your church, no one can make you. The people of Maine will have the opportunity to decide the kind of place Maine is. Vote YES on 1!!!
Jane Johnson: Ask a child.....I have...and 100 percent of the time all they want is MOM AND DAD.....
Yesterday at 3:47pm • Like • 1
John Bradshaw: @ Stacey, regarding your question, "what is to be done with those children (unwanted children whose parents would choose abortion) if there are not enough married households willing to care for them?". Valid question. But a follow up quesiton I would pose is, are we even close to that limit? I am bothered by claims that there is no solution for unwanted pregnancies, other than abortion. Having watched friends and family go through adoption struggles, it seems to me that there are many couples who are more than willing to raise these unwanted human beings.
Miriam Conners: Representative Fitts, I (Maine4Marriage) sent you materials on two occasions outlining what nationally and internationally respected social science and legal experts are warning us about with regard to the possible far reaching negative threats and consequences redefining marriage poses. Have you read the materials? It appears that it is only same sex marriage activists and uninformed supporters who make the claim that legalizing same sex marriage would in no way redefine marriage. You would be hard pressed to find any expert on either side of this issue who would say it is not redefinition. Have you read the materials I sent? And my question to you is this: If you knew, based on widely accepted social science data and legal scholarship that legalizing same sex marriage was harmful to society, would you still be in favor if it?
Stacey Fitts: @ Jane - And many of them came from broken homes that began as heterosexual marriages... of course they want their moms and dads back... what is your point? Ask a child what he or she wants to be when they grow up and I bet none of them will say I want to be gay... but you know what, some of them are. Ask two consenting adults who love eachother and are committed to spending their lives together what they want, and the majority of them will say - "to be married someday". That has nothiing to do with their religion or their sexuality, but it has to do with a desire to be bonded with someone in a loving and supportive relationship. Making the committment to have that relationship stamped and sealed by the State is just as important to a gay couple as it is to a heterosexual couple. My wife and I were married by a notary public in my parents living room 27 plus years ago. Is that marriage any differnt than a marriage by Pastor Emrich performed in Plymouth? Not to me and my wife or the State. Stop twisting this message around children and definitions... This is about love and equal opportunity, nothing else...
Stacey Fitts: @ Miriam, I have read though much of what you present, which honestly has an equal number of detractors... but either way we live in a world that is not defined by scholarship, but by human existence. I think it is incumbent on us to do the best we can with what we are given. It is not up to me to be critical of every parenting decision that I encounter, but I can tell you that the gay couples that I know that have children are either defying the odds in the studies that you so frequently cite, or the studies are simply wrong. They are happy stable children who will grow up knowing that they were loved by two people who gave them the best tools to survive that they could. We don't live in textbooks or according to what an academic or social scientist dictates. We are not perfect beings who perform according to a set standard. I know far more poorly performing hetero parents than I do gay parents. If your energies were put toward making all would be parents better, rather than limiting those who want the opportunity to try, I think the positive results would be much greater...
Miriam Conners: What exactly do you mean by detractors?
Allyson Dyer: I'd like to offer a brief insert into this conversation. As an information research specialist (with a Master's degree from a liberal university), I am a firm practitioner of evidence-based decision making. What worries me is that people are shrugging off the evidence when it doesn't align with their "feelings." Society cannot make decisions based on the feelings of the minority of any given population. When the desires of the minority become the law of the majority, we cease to be a democracy, relinquishing the rights that so many of us take for granted.
Stacey Fitts: @ Miriam As you haved removed my statements when people ask me a question and I answer, I think I we are done...
Miriam Conners: Stacey, I have removed no posting. You are making a wrong and undeserved accusation. Censoring opinion is not my MO.
Tracilea Young: Interesting reading.... especially the accusation from Mr. Fitts as I am able to read all his comments and statements. Emotional vs. educated responses are always entertaining.
Stacey Fitts: If you didn't then FB has a post that is in cyberland... either way... I don't have much else to offer... although Allyson's post is very creepy to me - and sounds so 1984ish or worse... No one is shrugging off evidence... People live this stuff. To say that your academically researched model is the way people should act and love and be is simply way too cold and calculated. We are most certainly talking about feelings. You can't reduce that to a study or a composite sketch of what the study says society is supposed to be. Behavioral Research has value but it relies on a human response. I have evidence that gay couples want to be married... and your study says that it will lessen society. I call Bullshit! I know people hate to take this back to the civil rights movement or even slavery, but if you were to use the same logic, there were people who had "evidence based" support that giving equal status to a person of color was going to be the ruin of society... That way of thinking only can take you so far, and then you have to make a leap of faith because of what your heart and soul tell you is right, no matter what the studies say...
Tracilea Young: Mr. Fitts... click on the "view all 14 comments" link.... just sayin'
Stacey Fitts: Thanks for the lesson in FB, but I hit return and a post never showed... As much as I want to continue this wonderful debate as has now been defined as the educated vs emotional, which the last time I looked, love was under the latter, I have said all I really feel I need to... Obviously, the lessons that Tracilea learned at the Playboy Mansion were educated, just sayin... She certainly had an opportunity to study human behavior, and is now an expert in FB usage.. so we are all appreciative of her contributions....all the rest of this is great, but unfortunately we have a hard time having parents work with their kids on their homework... defining the perfect home through educated analysis misses the point a bit if we can't do the first part... With alcoholism, drugs, child abuse (in these textbook homes), to think that other family units would be detrimental is rediculous. We will see how the voters of the State FEEL about this. Vote YES on 1!
Jena Merryman I am voting no on 1.
Miriam Conners Many more motherless and/or fatherless children... BY DESIGN! That is no small unintended consequence. Motherless and/or fatherless, not because of teen-age mistakes, bad judgement, poor parenting skills, adoption, human error, social decay, or ART run a muck. We are talking about design. I'm suggesting that to be at peace with the legalization of genderless marriage, we as a society must also be at peace with the outcome of many more motherless and/or fatherless children by calculation, planning, and design. Many people feel strongly, that even if that outcome was a mere possibility, it merits pause in this race to respond to the demands of a very small percentage of our population and instead, exercise wisdom of both the heart and mind. The social experiment of no-fault-divorce was an effort to "help" families and children. It has turned out to be a category 5 social catastrophe. And that experiment is no where near the category of radically redefining the institution of marriage. I have had my final say in this particular FB discussion. (don't get me going on the religious freedom threat) I hold no ill will for any and feel privileged to speak my mind in the public square.
Allyson Dyer: Wow, I've never been called creepy before. But that's alright. I'm voting no on the issue because of the fact that the research shows that heterosexual families are the mainstay of society. Here's my "creepy," evidence-based support: Journal of Human Sexuality 2: A. Dean Byrd, Dual-Gender Parenting for Optimal Child Development, pp. 104-123.
Max Estes: So Stacey...is this the level of reasoning we can expect from our reps? In response to the data from numerous peer-reviewed and academically rigorous studies clearly and consistently showing that children reach the best outcomes when raised by a married mother and father: "I call BS!" Thoughtless AND crude. Our children deserve much better than: "take a leap of faith...no matter what the studies say."
Evidence is pretty important in a change of mind. Change of heart? Not so much.
It has been my experience that information precedes inspiration.
How can we neglect to consider, for instance, the catastrophic outcome of no-fault- divorce? Few, saw that social experiment as a potential social AND economic disaster and yet it has indeed produce many unintentional socio-economic consequences, especially for children. And let me point out that no fault divorce was simply an attempt to facilitate divorce and make it a less harmful experience especially for children. No-fault-divorce is nowhere near as radical as is the social experiment of redefining marriage.
Radically redefining marriage has, based on expert opinion, the power to produce, over time, many unintended and gravely negative consequences.
- Login to post comments
Good work, Miriam, etc.
Great site with very useful accurate information. Highly recommended!