On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a column in The Washington Times (“The case against same-sex ‘marriage'”) in which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against state-sanctioned homosexual “marriage” is the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. But he dismissed the “sociological” case against “gay marriage” too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter that the Times printed in response on December 13:
Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especially on children.
By saying that sociological arguments against “gay marriage” suffer from “weakness,” Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote homosexual unions.
In the Netherlands, “gay marriage” hasn’t stopped AIDS
A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, although fewer than the “unpartnered,” and that men in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This is progress?
As for the moral argument, it’s easy to make to those who have not shut their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:
Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government. Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001. Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the current practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households. Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality. Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong. Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.
California is Exhibit A, where “domestic partnerships” are part of an overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexual relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care parents must take “diversity” training that orders them to affirm a child’s sexual behavior, including “cross-dressing.”
If you’re a Californian who believes in traditional morality, your government regards you as an enemy of the state. If “gay marriage” becomes legal nationally, all Americans will be subject to the tender mercies of pro-homosexual bureaucrats.
The new “McCarthyism”
Mr. Lindberg himself alludes to the fact that many people think homosexuality is wrong but are embarrassed to say so. It’s not because of the “weakness of the argument” but rather the unceasing media campaign to portray anyone who disagrees with homosexual activism as a “bigot” or a “hater.” During the Vietnam War, liberals invoked the ghost of Joe McCarthy to silence anti-communist opinion. Today, sexual libertines are using stigma to strangle honest discussion about homosexuality.
When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire’s homosexual Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practices in which homosexuals typically engage. “I wanted them to know what they were blessing in God’s name,” he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.
Until the realities of homosexual behavior are examined publicly, Mr. Lindberg may be right that only moral arguments will carry any weight. But it’s not because the social arguments are weak; it is because the public is being kept in the dark about the real costs of homosexuality.
Article updated 6/22/2009. Robert Knight is the former director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.