Same-Sex Marriage

Rise Up Australia opposes same-sex marriage because we are committed to protecting the traditional family unit with nurturing relationships between husband, wife and children. Research confirms that this model provides the best outcomes for the child and for society as a whole.

1 Definition of Marriage

Marriage, as defined in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life (1).

This federal legislation makes it clear that if the states pass any laws in relation to same-sex marriage they will be invalid. The Marriage Act would firstly have to be amended and then Federal Parliament would have to pass a law making same-sex marriage legal. A bill to amend this act was voted down by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives in 2012 (2). We support the status quo.

In addition, Rise Up Australia opposes child marriage, bigamy, polygamy and Centrelink funding of such and similar practices (3)(4). While recognizing that consenting adults can pursue their own sexuality in private, we oppose the promotion of homosexuality as a normal practice in schools and in public life (5).

We believe that school curriculums, social discourse and media commentaries have been hijacked by pro-homosexual propaganda by a group that does not represent the norm but makes up less than 2% of Australia’s population (6)(7).

Claims of genetic predisposition to same-sex attraction are not supported by scientific evidence, with incidents of identical twins with identical DNA having different sexual orientations, suggesting there are other factors that affect the formation of sexual identity (8).

We also oppose government funding of events, programs, courses, curriculum, policies or lobby groups that advance same-sex marriage, such as gay and lesbian pride marches, education policies promoting ‘sexual diversity’ and the Sydney Mardi Gras (9).

 2 Oppose ‘Hate Crimes’

While we resist homosexuality, Rise Up Australia opposes ‘hate crimes’ towards members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and their opponents, including bashings, verbal abuse, rape and other forms of humiliation.

We believe that in a free, democratic nation like Australia you can disagree with a person’s lifestyle while still treating them with dignity. Acts of aggression—a contributing factor to the tragic rise in drug use, self-harm and suicide in the LGBT community—should be prosecuted under existing laws similar to any other violence perpetrated against our citizens (10).

We also acknowledge that there are profound issues that can have a devastating impact upon the healthy development of a person’s gender and sexual identity (11). These may include sexual abuse by a person of the same sex, a domineering/abusive/negligent parent of the same sex and one or both parents preferring to have had a child of the opposite sex. Such violations of an individual’s gender and sexual identity deserve the utmost compassion to support the healing process.

3 Mother-Father Child Rearing

Rise Up Australia affirms the basic human right for a child to have both a male and a female as his/her parents and that being reared in a traditional family unit where nurturing relationships exist is in the best interests of the child.

While we recognize that there are terrible circumstances that may have caused the loss or departure of a parent (ie premature death, domestic violence or parent-child incest) and many loving single-parent households, we advocate the mother-father model as the ideal.

We acknowledge the difficulties of raising children in a single-parent family and support policies that provide adequate assistance, such as the war widow/er and orphan pension or government-subsidised counselling where marriages have broken down.

However, we are opposed to policies that would encourage same-sex parenting or the deliberate formation of single-parent families, including government-funded fertility treatments for single mothers/fathers and same sex couples (12).

We also believe that a child has a fundamental human right to know who their mother or father is from the outset rather than being denied access to information or encountering unreasonable delays due to bureaucratic ‘red tape’ (13).

In addition, we believe that intercountry adoptions for infertile couples need to be streamlined, with statistics showing that it can take up to four years for a child to be placed with an Australian couple once they have been approved for a placement (14). This has been heartbreaking to families seeking to adopt children out of impoverished orphanages where proper care is not being provided.

4 Better Outcomes

Rise Up Australia acknowledges the immense benefits of children being raised in a low-conflict, nurturing traditional (‘nuclear’) family unit.

Federal US research showed that “children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier (experience better mental health), healthier (have better physical health), and more prosperous (attain higher socioeconomic status) than children raised in any other household setting”(15). They were also less likely to have emergency room visits, learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and severe behavioural or emotional difficulties.

Our aim is to promote strong families where children develop healthy relationships with both parents, where possible, and policies are designed to promote and support this structure. Our nation can only benefit from a logical approach that considers the weight of social evidence.

End notes

1  ‘Marriage Amendment Act 2004’, Australian Government ComLaw, retrieved 3 September 2013, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361

2 ‘Lower House votes down same-sex marriage bill’, ABC News, 19 September 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016

3 ‘Australian girls among millions forced to become child brides’, News Limited, 22 July 2013, http://www.news.com.au/world-news/middle-east/australian-girls-among-millions-forced-to-become-child-brides/story-fnh81ifq-1226683129038

4 ‘Probing polygamy’, The Australian, 26 June 2008, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/probing-polygamy/story-e6frg8go-1111116736076

5 ‘It’s wrong to promote a dangerous lifestyle,’ The Australian, 3 December 2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/its-wrong-to-promote-a-dangerous-lifestyle/story-e6frgd0x-1226212590213

6 ‘Pro Homosexual Agenda Introduced for Australian Schools,’ Christian Post, 22 October 2012, http://global.christianpost.com/news/pro-homosexual-agenda-introduced-for-australian-schools-83735/

7 ‘Counts of Same Sex Couples in the 2011 Census’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, retrieved 3 September 2013, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetsssc?opendocument&navpos=450

8 ‘Biological Causes of Same Sex Attraction’, SSA Org, retrieved 3 September 2013, http://www.samesexattraction.org/biological-causes-homosexuality.htm

9 ‘DEECD Supporting Sexual Diversity in Schools’, Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, 12 April 2013, http://safeschoolscoalitionvictoria.org.au/249/

10 ‘Student gay bashing rife, says report’, The Age, 25 May 2005, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/24/1116700713242.html

11 ‘Developmental Experiences’, Same Sex Attraction, retrieved 3 September 2013, http://www.samesexattraction.org/development.htm

12 ‘Father Figures’, The Age, 13 November 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/father-figures-20111112-1ncxt.html

13 ‘Woman goes to court to find father,’ Sydney Morning Herald, 27 January 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/woman-goes-to-court-to-find-father-20110126-1a5f1.html

14 ‘Adoptions plunge as red tape adds to the delay of getting a child’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 December 2012, http://www.smh.com.au/national/adoptions-plunge-as-red-tape-adds-to-delay-of-getting-a-child-20121213-2bcva.html

15 Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings From the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007, US Department of Health and Human Services, see ‘Federal report confirms ‘nuclear family’ best for children’s health’, Christian Post, 3 September 2013, http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-health-48997/#cjWeX8K3ARoO0B0O.99

 

The Marriage Act 1961 Part 1. 5 Interpretation states that:-

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion
of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

The Australian Constitution states on Page 22

Part V – Powers of Parliament

Legislative powers of the Parliament.
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power* to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxi) Marriage:
(xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation
thereto, parental rights, and the custody and
guardianship of infants:

The Constitution also states on page 42

Inconsistency of laws.
109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth,
the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be invalid.

The above laws make it very clear that if the States pass any laws in relation to Same-Sex Marriage they will be invalid. In order for same-sex marriage to be legal, the Marriage Act 1961 would firstly have to be changed, and then the Federal Parliament would have to pass a law making same-sex marriage legal. Rise Up Australia Party will vote to leave the status quo as is.

Below is an article from America showing what has happened in Massachusetts since the introduction of same-sex marriage.

Below that is an article on – Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children

 

What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts

It’s far worse than most people realize by Brian Camenker October 2008 Updated June 2012

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done to Massachusetts since 2004. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. The slippery slope is real. New radical demands never cease. What has happened in the last several years is truly frightening.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, declaring that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, despite public outrage, homosexual “weddings” began to take place. And that was just the beginning . . .

The public schools

The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003 court ruling.

At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December 2003. It featured an array of speakers,including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families, either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September 2004, an 8thgrade teacher in Brookline, Mass., told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the door for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, ‘OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, ‘Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula – with hostility toward parents who disagreed. Kindergartners in Lexington, Mass. were given copies of a picture book, Who’s in a Family?, telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, just like their own parents. When David Parker – parent of a kindergartner – calmly refused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and jailed overnight.

The next year, second graders at the same school were read a book, King and King, about two men who fall in love and marry each other, ending with a picture of them kissing. When parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt their child out.

In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts, parents have no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in schools. The previous year the Parkers and Wirthlins had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt out their elementaryschool children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judge dismissed the case. The appeals judges later upheld the first judge’s ruling that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out their children. Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal,” federal judges have ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

The judges also allowed the school to overrule the Massachusetts parental notification law on this issue, with the claim that homosexuality or same-sex marriages are not “human sexuality issues” (to which the law refers).

School libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have expanding shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and “lifestyle” in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents’ complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

A large, slick hardcover book celebrating Massachusetts homosexual marriages began to appear in many school libraries across the state. Titled Courting Equality, it was supplied to schools by a major homosexual activist organization. Its apparent purpose was to teach kids that “gay marriage” was a great civil rights victory.

It has become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring their “spouses” to school functions. At one point, both high schools in my own town had principals who were “married” to their same-sex partners who came to school and were introduced to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” against same sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender days.” In my own town, a school committee member announced that combating “homophobia” was now a top priority.

The schools not only “celebrate” homosexual marriage, but have moved beyond to promote other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality.

As a result, many more children in Massachusetts appear to be self-identifying as

“gay.” According to the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, given to students in high schools across the state, between 2005 and 2009 both the percentage of kids “identifying as gay” and who had same-sex contact rose by approximately 50%. Although this bi-annual survey is unscientific and largely unreliable, it still shows a disturbing trend among those students who chose to answer the questions in this way.

(At a minimum, it implies that these answers are being encouraged.)

Once homosexuality is normalized, all boundaries begin to come down. The schools have already moved on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, which goes into schools with homosexual and transgender programs and activities for children, includes prominent activists who are transsexuals.

In 2006 a cross-dressing man undergoing a sex-change operation was brought into a third-grade class in Newton to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told a mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior”! She ended up removing her child from the school.

Public health

The Commissioner of the Mass. Dept. of Public Health, who is “married” to another man, told a crowd of kids at the state-sponsored Youth Pride event in 2007 that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

The STD test required to obtain a marriage license was eliminated five months after same-sex “marriages” began in Massachusetts, by a bill quietly signed by Gov. Mitt Romney. This was despite an increase in syphilis cases and other STDs in homosexual men in Massachusetts at the time (according to the Mass. Dept. of Public Health).

In recent years state funding for HIV/AIDS programs has gone up considerably in Massachusetts, along with the proportion of homosexual-related cases. According to the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health, even though the total number of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses has declined, the proportion caused by male homosexual behaviour rose by over 30% from 2000-2009. Thus, for the last several years the state has budgeted $30-$35 million per year for these programs. This dwarfs spending on any other viral disease that we are aware of.

A hideously obscene booklet on “gay” practices created by health officials was given out in a high school. Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay,” the Mass. Dept. of Public Health helped the AIDS Action Committee produce The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. It was given to teens at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It even included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Hospitals

Because of the purported necessity to cater to “LGBT health” issues, nearly every major Boston hospital has become an active supporter of the radical homosexual movement. This includes marching in the “Gay Pride” parades, holding homosexual events, and putting on numerous “gay health”-related seminars. This is one of the most disturbing things that’s happened since “gay marriage” became “legal.”

A major Boston hospital threatened to fire a physician when he objected to its promotion of homosexual behavior. In 2011 a prominent physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston – a large Harvard-affiliated hospital – objected to the hospital being involved with “Gay Pride” activities. He also pointed out to his superiors the medical health risks of homosexuality, and said that he and others at the hospital considered homosexual acts to be unnatural and immoral. The hospital then threatened to fire him, telling him that same-sex marriage is “legal” and that his comments constituted “harassment and discrimination.” After a “hearing” he was allowed to keep his job, but was told to apologize and to keep his opinions on these matters to himself.

In 2012 the Boston Medical Center purchased a prominent full-color ad (full page, inside cover) in the Boston Gay Pride guide book. The content? The entire ad promoted the hospital’s STD and AIDS clinics for the “pride” participants – particularly its screening services for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and HIV.

Domestic violence

Every year more state money goes to deal with the high incidence of homosexual domestic violence. Since “gay marriage” began, Massachusetts has one of the highest proportions of homosexuals living as couples in the country. Given the extremely dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more and more money to deal with that problem. “Gay domestic violence programs” have also become a major lobbying push in the State House by the homosexual group MassEquality. This year it comprises a considerable portion of a $5.5 million state budget item (according to MassEquality). This is up from $100,000 budgeted in 2007.

“Gay domestic partner violence” literature (funded by the state) is now distributed at virtually every public homosexual event including to children at “Youth Pride” events, GLSEN conferences, “gay straight alliance” high school clubs – and especially at the various events and parades during “Gay Pride” week.

It has become such a problem that a public candlelight vigil in downtown Boston is held every year by a coalition of Massachusetts homosexual groups “to remember victims of recent LGBT intimate partner violence, and to raise awareness of this important community issue.”

Business and employment

All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

People can now get fired from their jobs for expressing religious objections to same-sex “marriage.” In 2009, a deputy manager at a Brookstone store in Boston was fired from his job for mentioning his belief to another manager who had kept bringing up the subject with him that day. Brookstone’s letter of termination (quoted on local TV news) said his comment was “inappropriate” because “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.”

The wedding industry is required to serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must accept same-sex marriage events or be held liable for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal.” Then they report “tolerance violators” to authorities, and businesses can be fined and punished. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality.”

Legal profession and judicial system

The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex marriage “law.” In 2007, a Boston man failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about homosexual marriage.

In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual “marriage.” Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In addition, there are now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

In 2011 the Governor appointed Barbara Lenk, a “married” lesbian activist, to be a state Supreme Court Justice. She has said that the interpretation of law “evolves and develops” because “minority groups [e.g., homosexuals] see certain things differently based on their own experiences.”

Adoption and birth certificates

In the year after the “gay marriage” ruling, the state’s adoption and foster care workers went through a massive indoctrination on “LGBT youth awareness.” This included employees and managers at the Mass. Dept. of Social Services. These sessions were run by the radical National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (which once awarded a “Leather Leadership Award” to the owner of a pornographic video company).

The emphasis was that those working with children must be trained that homosexuality (and transgenderism) are normal. At one session, the trainer announced that the new motto is, “To tolerate is an assault; you have to accept” this behavior.

Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be allowed to adopt children – through any agency. In 2006 Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

Adoption agencies have said that 40% of their adoptions are to homosexual couples. Anecdotal reports also indicate that many adoption agencies now favour homosexuals over normal couples.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year.” The men had adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final, DSS approached the men about adopting a second child.

The state-funded Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) has been pushing “GLBT” family formation and holds “adoption parties” where homosexual couples have been encouraged to attend (along with others) and see “available” children in person. MARE places prominent ads in GLBT publications.

Birth certificates in Massachusetts have been changed from “mother” and “father” to “mother/parent” and “father/parent.” Two men or two women can now be listed as the “parents” on birth certificates! Homosexuals who adopt can revise children’s’ existing birth certificates.

A court ruled in 2012 that if a child is “born of a same-sex marriage,” there is no need for adoption by a non-biological parent. Thus, they would both be the listed as the “parents” on the child’s birth certificate, without any formal proceedings necessary.

(The other biological parent is not noted on the official birth certificate.)

Government mandates

Marriage licenses and certificates in Massachusetts now have “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “husband” and “wife.” Imagine having a marriage license like that.

In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. Several Justices of the Peace immediately decided to resign. That order still stands. Also Town Clerks were forced by the Governor’s office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square

Since gay “marriage” began, public “Gay Pride” events have become more prominent in the public square. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. For example: the annual profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and the 2008 “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed (so they could “become” men). Governor Patrick even marched with his 17-year-old “out lesbian” daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a sadomasochist “leather” group brandishing a black and blue flag, lashes and chains!

Churches being harassed

Churches and religious people have been demonized, harassed and threatened – with no punishment for the perpetrators. Since the “gay marriage” ruling, those who publicly disagree with “gay marriage” or the normalcy of homosexuality – or hold events promoting traditional beliefs – are targets of militant retribution by homosexual activists. Police and public officials have shown no interest in stopping this. We are not aware of a single homosexual activist arrested (or charged with any “hate crime”) for disrupting a religious event or threatening and harassing people at a church. For example:

In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words “Two men are friends, not spouses” on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church’s fence saying, “Spread love not hate.” Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, “It is legal for two men or women to be spouses.” Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense.

In 2010 a Catholic elementary school balked at letting a lesbian couple enroll their son. As a result, the school was excoriated in the media and even by the local liberal state representative as “discriminatory.” The privately-run Catholic Schools Foundation then threatened to withhold funding to the school unless it relented. The Archdiocese eventually backed down and the school reversed its policy.

In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.

In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized by Catholic Vote, yelling “Bigots” and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.

In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.

In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.

The media

The Boston media regularly features articles and news stories using homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal,” they insist, so there must be no difference in how marriage is portrayed. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual “marriage” issues – and how to properly accept it.

A number of news reporters and TV anchors are “out” homosexuals (at least one openly “married”) who march in the “Gay Pride” parades and publicly participate in other homosexual events.

Politics

A climate of fear has kept politicians at all levels from disagreeing with or criticizing same-sex marriage since it became “legal.” Public officials are afraid of being accused of wanting to “take away rights.” Those who support traditional marriage rarely discuss it publicly. And this fear has expanded to suppress any meaningful debate on all homosexual related issues. Additionally, it has brought a feeling of intimidation among pro-family people across the state.

The Massachusetts Republican establishment has become arguably the most “pro-gay marriage” GOP in America. The state GOP House and Senate leaders now both publicly support “gay marriage,” as did the recent Mass. GOP candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor. GOP candidates for office are told not even to discuss it.

In April 2009, the Chairman of the Mass. Republican Party told a homosexual newspaper that the GOP would no longer oppose “gay marriage.” Then Chairman Jennifer Nassour, interviewed on the front page of Bay Windows, assured the gay community that the state GOP would “steer clear of social” issues such as “opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.” The newly elected chairman, Bob Maginn, does not talk about the issue.

Every Massachusetts state-wide elected official and member of Congress (but one) now publicly supports “gay marriage.” The one (apparent) holdout, Republican US Senator Scott Brown, strenuously avoids the issue, saying that it’s “settled law” and not worth fighting over.

Rule of law

Same-sex “marriage” came to Massachusetts through a radical court’s narrow ruling. Because of that, there is an often depressing sense of helplessness that pervades this issue. The marriage statute was never changed, and it has been convincingly argued that the whole process was in violation of the state constitution. The Governor simply went along. And the Legislature acted to block popular votes on two separate constitutional amendments protecting marriage, after sufficient signatures had been gathered for each. The rule of law seems further lost with every new outrage imposed on the people.

Even the Massachusetts Law Library (online) shows no law legalizing same-sex marriage, only a court opinion. It is a dangerous precedent to allow such sweeping judicial activism to stand as law, enabling everything that has followed from it. It should serve as a warning to states across the country.

In conclusion

Same-sex “marriage” hangs over society, hammering citizens with the force of law. Once it gets a foothold, society becomes more oppressive. Unfortunately, it was imposed on the people of Massachusetts through a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians. The homosexual movement has used that combination to its continued advantage around the country. It’s pretty clear that this radical movement is obsessed with marriage not because large numbers of homosexuals actually want to marry each other. A small percentage actually “marry.” (In fact, over the last several months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages; at first it was full of them.) Research shows that homosexuals’ relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and real “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even truly desire. The push for “gay marriage” is really is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and forcing its acceptance on (otherwise unwilling) citizens and our social, political, and commercial institutions.

To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.

Copyright (c) 2012 MassResistance

 

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!
All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.
Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.
Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.
A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.
Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.
Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modelled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.
There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.
Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.
The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.
Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Dr Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. She received her Ph.D. from the California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, in 1997. Dr Hansen’s professional experience is varied and includes work in multiple clinical as well as forensic settings. She is particularly interested in issues related to marriage, parenting, male / female differences, and homosexuality. Dr. Hansen has extensively reviewed the research literature in these areas and occasionally writes commentaries based on her findings that have been published worldwide. She has been heard on local and national radio and interviewed by the web and print media. Dr. Hansen also consults on legal cases and has testified in both deposition and court hearings related to her professional expertise.

 

Back to Top