Gay wedlock would lead to worse

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 2/17/04 | GEORGE M. WEAVER

[JesseHousman]

Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture. Nothing would ever be the same. Every young child asks his parents, "Can boys [or girls] get married to each other"? If the answer changes from "no" to "yes," homosexuality would have then achieved equal status with heterosexual conduct and marriage. This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches.

If the answer becomes "yes" there will doubtless be a dramatic increase in the incidence of homosexuality. Sexual arousal is a mystical thing, subject to conditioning. How else can one explain bisexuality, transsexuality, or those who migrate from one orientation to another? We should not underestimate the power of continued Hollywood marketing of homosexuality, the human drive for pleasure and official government approval to mold behavior in this area.

And same-sex marriage would not work. It might seem like a benign idea that would lead to more stability in homosexual relationships -- among people who, after all, are "born that way." But there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Such relationships are inherently dysfunctional because we are not made that way. We all know that sometimes heterosexual marriage does not work either, but at least it can work and certainly provides the ideal matrix for raising children.

Moreover, it is doubtful that most homosexuals really want marriage. The mind-set appears to be abandonment of restraint, not fidelity or acceptance of a different restraint such as lifelong homosexual marriage.

By the time it is proved that same-sex marriages don't work, irreparable damage will have been done to traditional marriage, which has already been weakened by divorce and extramarital cohabitation. Damage will be compounded by the ramifications of same-sex marriage. As Georgia law presently stands, pedophilic homosexual marriages would immediately be legal if same-sex marriage were instituted today. A 50-year-old man or woman could marry a 16-year-old (and in some cases younger) boy or girl. And the very same sham constitutional privacy arguments used by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be, and in some cases already have been, made for legalization of incestuous and polygamous or group marriages (including same-sex, opposite sex and bisexual varieties).

How about two men and three women? By the time all of this comes to fruition, the whole concept of marriage will be meaningless for all of us and it will be impossible to repair the damage.

Moreover, our democracy will be shattered if judges, our black-robed masters, are allowed to continue using the pretense of constitutional construction to impose their personal social agendas, without regard to the wishes of the majority.

The only solution, apart from a revolt against the judicial oligarchs, is a constitutional amendment. We must act soon.

George M. Weaver is an Atlanta attorney.

[BibChr]

Our (Sacramento's) excellent morning talk-show host Eric Hogue (1380, KTKZ -- and a FReeper) painted out more nightmares this morning.

He envisions Mr/Mrs(?) Bob and Ted now calling up ABC Insurance and getting the married-couple rate. Then they get into an accident. The company, investigating, says, "Wait, you're not married. Fraudulent document, invalid claim."

Then Bob and Ted sue San Francisco. And WIN. And a couple of other thousand do the same. And WIN.

And who pays? This tyrant/mayor? I don't think so.

Liberalism is expensive, and on so many levels.

Dan

[FormerLib]

Given that the divorce rate is already above fifty percent, it's not like us straights have a moral headlock on the institution.

All the more reason not to damage the institution even more. We should begin to rollback such nonsense as "no-fault divorce" laws that the left has foisted upon us instead of helping them to do more damage.

Anyway, the 50% figure is a mis-representation anyway. It compares the total number of new marriages per year, not the total number of existing marriages, against the number of divorces per year. Nor does it factor in the fact that many of these divorces occur among folks who marry multiple times.

.. there is no real connection between homsexuality and pedophilia. Most child molesters are in fact heterosexual.

Being that homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, why does anyone think that quoting that heterosexual offenders are also in the majority would be suprising? The fact is that homosexuals comprise 30% of pedophiles, meaning that they are vastly over-represented there. That, my friend, establishes a link, albeit only from one type of sexual perversion to another. Such a link shouldn't surprise anyone.

[FormerLib]

I wonder how many times we'll have to repeat these truths before the lies stop being repeated?

I'm feeling a real kinship to that Sissyphus guy!

[livius]

It's very, very frustrating! That old rock keeps rolling back down on us!

[r9etb]

George M. Weaver is an Atlanta attorney.

I hope Mr. Weaver's legal writings are more effective than this article is.

He makes a lot of important points, but they're written so obscurely that only the already-converted will be convinced.

[X-Servative]

Which has always been my point. If you can get aroused to have sex with the opposite sex, then you ARE NOT GAY. It is a choice.

[Semper_guy]

Well said,
Personally I think the reasons for people being Gay are miriad--some may be born with it, some learn it, some due to trauma, etc. Psychiatrists have been unable to explain why we do most of what we do to any real exacting degree, so why should homosexuality be any different.

[biblewonk]

Although I'm opposed to gay "marriage," this seems like quite a stretch. Why would knowing that Jim and Joe down the street were "married" have more effect on a child than living with his own lovingly and stably married straight parents? (And how many more cohabiting gay couples would result from gay "marriage"---especially if, as the author argues, gay "marriages" won't work?)

I have 8 kids and a good stable marriage. We have several gay couples living together within 3 blocks of our house. Whether they are shacked up or pseudo-married makes little difference to my kids as you suggest. But as the writer suggested sexuality is a rather mystical thing and the more of it you are exposed to the more it effects your. As gay couples gain boldness to flaunt their sexuality the effect will increase. I have spent quite a bit of time explaining sexuality to my kids and they and I are repulsed by sodomites. But there are many many disfunctional families out there and they are much more susceptible.

It is all just another drop in a bucket. How much did 3's Company do to promote gayness, how about Monty Python? All of these things are straws on a camels back. Gay marriage is a big one.

[applemac_g4]

"Not to mention that if homosexuality is genetically recessive, straight parents can have gay kids (as in fact they do)."

-----

It doesn't matter whether a hypothetical gene for homosexuality is recessive or dominant. In the real world, the Weinberg equations don't apply given all the assumptions of environmental stability that must be made to get them to work.

In nature, which is red in tooth and claw, any gene like homosexuality which had a direct, negative effect on offspring production would result in its extinction.

[BaBaStooey]

Arguably, allowing homosexual marriage would result in the divorce rate skyrocketing even higher than it currently is at.

Is it not true that the infidelity rate among homosexual partners is higher than among married couples?

I'm basing this point on an article from the Weekly Standard a few issues ago that examined gay marriage laws in Europe and their after effects.

It seems to me that the only people who would really want homosexual marriage to exist would be divorce lawyers. In theory, it would expand their potential client pool and bring in more cash.

[Jack Black]

Where has the author been? "This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches. ". It *IS* taught in schools today.

Little Johnny's public high-school has a whole gay indoctrination thing going on. Teachers mark their rooms as "gay-bi-lesbian-transgender safe" by putting rainbows and pink triangles in them. The emphasis in on "tolerance" of people different then you, including most importantly GLBT people. (Sometimes "questioning" is added to this laundry list)

At work, for a mega-corp, Jonny's dad is bombarded with diversity training that again emphasizes the rights of homosexuals. His company has gone beyond this to have special gay forums and actively promote "open houses" and talks by "the companies highest ranking gay and lesbian managers".

I've experienced all this first hand. The gay marraige is not the start of a revolution, it's the final proof of victory.

[Semper_guy]

Good point.
But you are also arguing from disputed stats. Conservative estimates of homosexuality sit at 1% give or take, while others tend to lean towards ten percent or more. And that's just stats taken years ago, while much of the gay population was still in the closet, and not willing to be counted.

A depressing fact--I have so met many women in my life who have been accosted or molested as children and young teens, it's saddening. I believe the stats are more than fifty percent of women have experienced some form of sexual assault in there lives. (again these stats likely have an agenda attatched, but they're all I have)

[JesseHousman]

...wouldn't they eventually become extinct?

Not hardly. Thanks to sycophantic "educators" giving them podium time in schools, they're in their recruitment mode!

It's all part of the homosexual agenda underwritten by looney liberals.

[BaBaStooey]

'Lonesome cowboy' tried to marry his horse


Boulder has long been known as a haven for animal lovers, but in 1975 one local man lent a whole new meaning to the term "animal husbandry."

The late Roswell "Ros" Howard made national news when he applied for a marriage license to wed his horse. According to Howard's own account, in an unpublished manuscript titled "Dolly and Me," the license was refused because the bride was only 8 years old and couldn't provide consent in writing from her parents.

Howard made it clear that his intent was to interject "a mark of sanity in a world where apparently madness was viewed as rational behavior." He was referring to the actions of then-Boulder County Clerk, Clela Rorex, who, for a brief period of time, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In order to make his point, the 63-year-old Howard obtained a parade permit from the city so that he could (in Boulder's pre-pedestrian mall days) park Dolly and his horse trailer on Pearl Street directly in front of the courthouse. The Boulder Police Department promised to provide traffic control.

With Bob Palmer, television reporter for CBS news, standing by, Howard entered the courthouse on April 15, 1975. He was quoted as asking, "If a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl, why can't a lonesome old cowboy get hitched to his favorite saddle mare?"

After his application was turned down, Howard was greeted by a crowd of people on the courthouse lawn. The Camera's headline on the attempt read, "Rorex says 'neigh' to galloping couple." Howard's efforts made it into newspapers coast-to-coast and overseas. His attempt also elicited a comment by Johnny Carson during his national television program, the "Tonight Show."

Although Howard gained notoriety with his horse, he earned a living with his dogs. In the 1940s and 1950s, he and his wife Mary lived north of Boulder and bred pointers and setters. The couple wrote a book about their kennel experiences entitled "Going to the Dogs." From 1967 through 1970, Howard was a regular contributor to the Camera's Sunday Focus Magazine. He continued his "Going to the Dogs" column which he later renamed, "Dog Tales."

Howard died in Boulder in December 1980.

Rorex issued her first same-sex marriage license in March 1975, one month before Howard came to the courthouse with Dolly. At the time, state law did not specify that marriage had to be between a man and a woman. When asked about the legality of a license between two people of the same sex, Rorex told the Camera "My feeling was that, if it wasn't clear, I should decide every case on the side of the people."

Of Howard's attempt to wed Dolly, the Clerk explained that the law specifically referred to "persons."

Today, state law does not recognize same-sex marriage. Boulder does have a registry where domestic partners can officially document that they are a couple.

In the end, the fact that Howard's proposed "bride" was underage wasn't an issue after all. What was important to Howard was that he had bucked the system and had made people laugh. Within a few months, a smiling Rorex was photographed on Dolly's back at Hidden Valley Ranch where the horse was boarded.

Howard didn't have a leg to stand on, but he did inject some humor into an otherwise controversial situation.

Silvia Pettem writes on history for the Daily Camera. Write her at the Daily Camera, P. O. Box 591, Boulder 80306, or e-mail pettem@earthlink.net.



April 25, 2002

[biblewonk]

I agree there will be some effect---but not, I think, the "dramatic" one the author claims.

OK. I guess dramatic is a relative term. 3's company and Monty Python didn't have much effect on people. Outting Freddy Mercury wasn't too dramatic either but something has changed in that high schools now have gay clubs. Maybe the media's play on some famous gay bashings have had the dramatic effects to protect and defend homo's. Maybe it's the cumulative effect of annual gay pride marches. The overturning of anti sodomy laws has had a relatively dramatic effect and certainly a win for them now when the majority wants them to shut up and go away will also embolden them to want more.

[Dataman]

Liberalism is expensive, and on so many levels.

Stupidity is expensive, and on so many levels.

exactly my point in (ahem) another conversation.

[conserv13]

We have several gay couples living together within 3 blocks of our house.

Ugh! I'm sorry to hear that.

Why would you say that? I know several gay couples and they are decent people. I don't care if they want to get married or not. Two of the couples I know have been living together for 5 or 6 years, longer than some straight marriages I have seen last.

[LiteKeeper]

AMEN and AMEN!

[FormerLib]

That old rock keeps rolling back down on us!

Fear not, we will prevail. God and Nature are on our side. ;-)