Top Ten Gay Marriage False “Facts” Part 2

We’re in the middle of the Top Ten false “facts” reported by Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 in California—a decision that could erode marriage and First Amendment rights in the entire country. See yesterday’s column here if you missed the first five false “facts.”

6. “No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” (FF 46)

I guess thousands of ex-gays just don’t exist in Judge Walker’s special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary—a self-described “Jewish atheist,” Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they’ve turned on him because he reported the truth.

Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study “has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change.”

When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change their position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, “I think they should, [but] they will not be. . . . There’s a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”

Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker’s conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that’s intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can’t they be talked out of it?

Sexual orientation isn’t like race either. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.

Of course Walker’s “fact” even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can’t change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal “marriage” relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.

7. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.” (FF 70)

Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion “is accepted beyond serious debate.” Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his “fact.”

But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. “No respect at all—when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!”

Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.

Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain—if men and women are interchangeable—then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex”?

Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them.”

8. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.

9. “Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.” (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society’s very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.

1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn’t thrive because it wouldn’t even survive. It would end the human race!

This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.

If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality not me. I didn’t make up the facts of nature. I’m just admitting them—something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.

10. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” (Conclusion)

The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any “rational basis” for overturning Proposition 8—no rational basis from the constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their “private moral views” cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own “private moral view” that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.

He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” If that’s true, that’s not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.

Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That’s what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

(For more about this complicated and sensitive issue, get my compact book from which some of this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)

When judges short-circuit [the constitutional amendment] process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

Activist judges are killing democracy and freedom. Activist judges are all liberals. Liberals are seeking to kill democracy and freedom and they're making progress. It's why they want to be called progressives.

They are often like a fellow co-worker told me back in the 60’s: “Don’t give me any more facts, my mind is made up.”

And I just read: “Men and women are given the power to disobey. They are capable of doing a great many things they are not supposed to do.

“To me two of the saddest verses in the Bible are:

“In those days there was no king in Israel: and every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

The other is in Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (also in Proverbs 16:25)

Excellent points, but #8 in particular is valid. People who continue stubbornly on a homosexual course of behavior have a far better chance of contacting a fatal disease than the general heterosexual population.

If the judge truly had compassion for the people who share his aberrant behavior, he would at least sanction others to encourage them to be celibate if he believes they can not counsel them to be heterosexual.

Sanctioning of gay marriage does precisely the opposite.

Just as some of the arguments brought by the judge were weak, some of these responses are not strong, either. For example, #6.

The better argument would be that many religions prohibit sex outside of marriage. Is that “harmful” to people who engage in pre-marital sex? That depends on your definition of “harmful,” but probably just as harmful as the requirement that practitioners of many religions not engage in homosexual sex.

If you don't belong to one of those religions, then what you do in your home is your own business. But there is no need for the state to sanction every relationship that anyone wants to engage in.

One argument nobody seems to be making is that there are various legal and property rights associated with marriage that really have no reason to apply to homosexual marriage. The reason for these property rights is to protect women from the economic superiority of men. California is a community property state . . . is that protection needed in a gay union? Other states have “tenancy by the entireties” laws and requirements that a spouse sign on a mortgage even if the spouse doesn't own the homestead . . . all to protect the family.

Civil Unions, maybe, but the full bundle of rights associated with marriage do not need to be extended to same-sex couples.

One of the WORST “unanticipated outcomes” of homosexual marriage recognition is the Islamic Bomb.

Once the Courts and society no longer accept that the traditional bond between one man and one woman is the SOLE
definition of what constitutes a legal “marriage”, the door is immediately open to OTHER nontraditional “marriages”.

These will soon INCLUDE polygamy. THAT will allow Muslims in our society to have plural wives with harems - RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA.

And, as in MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH WERE FORMERLY NON-MULSIM, this will allow them to accelerate the growth of their numbers and their impact on politicians and society.

Its IRONIC, that when this occurs, the FIRST people to be lined up for extermination will the homosexuals who helped start the thing in the first place!!!

You are not addressing the point of this judge - which is to destroy the family, marriage, and any moral structure of a society. This “judge” is corrupt, immoral, and should be flushed from society, and most certainly from any position of authority in government. Logical arguments will not affect this jurisprudence - only force majeure, the right and absolute duty of a moral people when challenged with this outrageous act.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.