Ethics & Religion
A Column by Michael J. McManus
 

Home
Page

For Current Column
See the Home Page

 

About the
Columnist

 

Search this
Site...

 

Column Archives
List of all columns 
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

2011

2010

2009
2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

For 2003 and earlier
only the title is listed.
Use the Search Function
to find the article.

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

 

About The
Columnist

 

Email
Comments
to Mike

May 28, 2015
Column #1,761
Why Supreme Court Should Not Legalize
Same-Sex Marriage

By Mike McManus

As the nation awaits a decision by the Supreme Court on whether to legalize same-sex marriage, or to leave it as an option to each state - there are some arguments against it which have not been given adequate attention.

For example, despite their clamor for same-sex marriage, most gays and lesbians are not interested getting married.

Consider California, one of the most liberal states. The California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May 2008. That prompted conservatives to mobilize, propose and pass Proposition 8 that added this sentence to the State’s Constitution in November: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” (This vote was on the same day that Obama beat McCain by more than 20 points.)

During the six months of legal same-sex marriage in California, there were 18,000 gay weddings. However, if the state’s gays and lesbians are 1.7% of the population, that’s 651,000 who could have married, but only 5.5% chose to do so.

In New York State after two years of legal same-sex marriage, 333,000 same-sex people could have married, but there were only 12,200 gay weddings.

There is a remarkable irony and injustice here. Gays and lesbians are only 1.7% of the population, and only 7% of them want to marry. Why should such a tiny percentage of America’s population be allowed to force a radical redefinition of marriage upon America?

The argument that gays deserve the same freedom to marry as heterosexuals sounds reasonable to many. However, why not leave the decision to each state? Only three of 37 states voted for same sex marriage in a referendum. Ten times as many states voted against it by upholding traditional marriage in referenda! Why shouldn’t their voices count?

In eight states, Legislatures passed laws allowing same-sex marriage. However, in 26 states, a judge forced states with constitutional bans to marry gay people.

Where is the sovereignty of the people in those decisions? The Supreme Court could recognize it, and I predicted it would do so after hearing how the Justices considered the case in April.

I was encouraged by the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the issue, said, “This definition of marriage was been with us for millennia. And it is very difficult for the Court to say, “Oh well, we – we know better.”

Another fundamental reason to oppose same-sex marriage which has not been given adequate attention is that it will deprive children of either their mother or father. In an earlier column I quoted Grace Evans, 11, who testified to a committee of Minnesota legislators, “Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”

It is a profound question that Minnesota ignored, as it enacted same-sex marriage. Peter Sprigg, a scholar at the Family Research Council, argues that if the Court legalized same-sex marriage, “Society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.”

Scholars are unanimous that children are most happy and successful when they are raised by the own married mother and father.

A related unconsidered issue is the fact children would be raised in homes where sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected. A study in the journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, that homosexual men in partnered relationships had an average of eight sexual partners per year outside the relationship.

Does America want to force kids to live in that kind of home?

There is also a growing consensus that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from making a decision on this case. Both have presided over same-sex weddings in recent months. That clearly puts them on one side of this contentious issue.

Ginsburg has even said that Americans won’t need “a large adjustment if the high court rules that gay marriage is a constitutional right.” She has asserted “I welcome Legal Gay Marriage.” Louisiana’s House even passed a resolution asking Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case. In fact, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has said they should be impeached.

They should simply withdraw from the case.

Finally, what’s needed is for the Court to live up to its motto engraved on the building: “Equal justice under the law.”
 

  30+ Years / 1700+ Columns
  LATEST ARTICLE
  March 23, 2017: Column 1856: Gorsuch: Excellent for Supreme Court
  Recent Columns
  Comparing Donald Trump with George H.W. Bush
  Why Have "Religious Nones" Tripled?
  Norma McCorvey Roe of Roe v. Wade
  The Worst Valentine: Cohabitation
  Hundreds of Thousands Marched for Life
  Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
  Christianity Gives Women Equal Opportunity
  The Legacy of Martin Luther
  Sextortion Kills Teens
  National Marriage Week
  CNN Lied About Trump's Crowd
  Obama's Farewell Address & Legacy
  The Purpose Driven Life
  How to Avoid "Divorce Month"
  Divorce Rate: Falling Or Rising?
  Assisted Suicide Is Growing
  Stop Subsidizing Cohabitation
  The Wright Brothers - Who Persevered
  Children Are Hurt by Marriage Failure
  Recent Searches
  alcoholism, prayer, guns, same sex marriage, abortion, depression, islam, divorce, polygamy, religious liberty, health care, pornography, teen sex, abortion and infanticide, Roe+v+Wade, supreme court, marriage, movies, violence, celibacy, living+together, cohabitation, ethics+and+religion, pornography, adultery, divorce, saving+marriages
©2017 Michael J. McManus syndicated columnist  / [email protected]
Ethics & Religion at http://www.ethicsandreligion.com
9311 Harrington Dr. / Potomac, MD 20854 / 301 978-7105
President & Co-Chair Marriage Savers / www.marriagesavers.org
Site Sponsored by enktesis.com