The Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage and Rebuttals

Copyright © 2003 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2003-JUL-10
Latest update: 2003-OCT-8
Author: B.A. Robinson http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint.htm#menu Twenty Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) and Rebuttals: Overview:

Polls in the late 1990s found that the topic of greatest concern for conservative Christians, and for many other North Americans, was that gays and lesbians might achieve rights and protections in law that had previously been reserved as special privileges only for heterosexuals. Perhaps the most important of these rights is for homosexuals to be able to marry the partner that they love and to whom they are committed for the rest of their life. Since the first attempts to legalize same-sex marriage were launched in Hawaii, same-sex marriage and civil unions have remained on the "front burner." Concern increased during 2003-JUNE and JULY when same-sex marriages were legalized in both Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. Some same-sex adult couples from Canada, the U.S., and other countries have started to travel to these provinces to marry.
Essentially all conservative Christian groups and leaders describe SSM and civil unions as a threat to society. They often consider the nature of this menace to be self-evident, and do not give an in-depth analysis of the reasons for their concerns. For example:
|[p|Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council (FRC) wrote: "The growing attack on family and marriage is unprecedented in |
|ic|American history. Forces of radicalism are laboring night and day to deconstruct marriage, legitimize counterfeits, and re-define |
|] |family in ways that would make it unrecognizable as the foundational social institution." 1 |
|[p|Gerard V. Bradley, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame and president of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars went |
|ic|further. He was quoted as saying that same-sex marriage would mean "the demolition of marriage." 2 |
|] | |

On the other hand, many gay-positive, religious liberal, and mental health news sources stress that SSM and/or civil unions should be approached as civil liberty issues. The right to marry the person with whom you have made a lifetime commitment is of paramount importance to many -- a major human rights issue. For example:
|[p|"Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men [sic] are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human and|
|ic|legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference." 3 |
|] | |
|[p|"GLAD contended that the right to choose whom a person marries is a fundamental right protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. The |
|ic|group argued that the emotional bonds for same- and opposite-sex couples are identical and so should be the legal rights, |
|] |responsibilities and benefits that come from marriage." 4 |

These groups often don 't consider possible negative effects that SSM may have on society.
This essay considers arguments that SSM are undesirable -- that they might damage North American culture. Some were derived from the presentation by the State of Hawaii during the hearing in the Baehr v. Miike lawsuit in the Hawaiian Circuit Court in 1996. Some were derived from the ruling in the “Hedy Halpern et al...." case by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Other points were extracted from a variety of E-mails and web sites by conservative Christians.
Rebuttals are listed after each point. They are based on the assumptions that homosexuality is a fixed, unchosen, sexual orientation. These are the beliefs of most gays, lesbians, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers. Religious conservatives generally believe that homosexuality is a changeable, chosen, addictive lifestyle behavior. The latter will probably disagree with most of the rebuttals.
1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.
The State of Hawaii claimed that gays and lesbians in committed relationships make inferior parents. The best way to assure that children get the best possible upbringing is to require spouses to be of different genders.
|[p|All of the witnesses in Baehr v. Miike -- both for the plaintiffs and the defense -- said that, on average, gay and lesbian couples are|
|ic|as loving as are opposite sex couples, and are equally as competent as parents. Since that court hearing, there have been many |
|] |additional studies of the competency of gay and lesbian parents. Those conducted by groups opposed to same-sex marriage have generally |
| |found that homosexual parents are inferior; those conducted by groups that support same-sex marriage, or which have no preconceived |
| |position have generally found that gay and lesbian couples are equal or superior to opposite-sex parents. 8 Children parented by |
| |lesbians or gays have been found to be no different from those raised in an opposite-sex household "...on measures of popularity, |
| |social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and |
| |parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Also, no significant |
| |differences have been observed in regard to "teachers ' and parents ' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep |
| |disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." 9 |
|[p|It is true that a child in a same-sex household could lack contact with adults of the opposite gender from their parents. However, this|
|ic|can easily be compensated for by intentionally involving other adults of the appropriate gender in family activities. |
|] | |
|[p|list of studies of gay and lesbian parenting. |
|ic| |
|] | |

2. Children need to be raised by their biological parents:
Children are better off when raised by their biological parents. In a same-sex marriage, at least one parent would be genetically unrelated to the child.
|[p|With a divorce rate approaching 50%, a large minority of children are parented by a genetically-unrelated adult at some time in their |
|ic|lives. This inevitably happens in the case of a step family. If the state is to deny gays and lesbians, on this basis, the right to |
|] |marry the partner that they love and have made a commitment to, then the state should logically deny divorced persons with children the|
| |right to remarry the person that they love. |
|[p|Child adoption is based on the belief that genetically-unrelated adults can love a child as their own, and do a good job raising the |
|ic|child. Millennia of experience have shown that this system works. |
|] | |

3. A child with same-sex parents will be subjected to hate:
Raising a child in a home with gay or lesbian parents in effect punishes the child, because they would be exposed to homophobia by the public. Hatred directed at the child 's parents would spread to the child.
|[p|Using the same argument, one could suggest that all inter-racial marriages should be banned and that all individuals of mixed-race |
|ic|ancestry should not be allowed to marry because their children will be of mixed racial ancestry and may experience racism from racial |
|] |bigots. Other people 's racism or homophobia should not be used to deny fundamental human rights to gays, lesbians, inter-racial couples|
| |and persons of mixed-race ancestry. |

4. Marriage is only feasible if the couple is monogamous:
Because of monogamy, marriage is a stable institution. This is apparently a reference to the state 's belief that homosexual couples cannot be monogamous.
|[p|It is important to realize that most opposite-sex marriages are not monogamous. The percentage of heterosexual spouses who engage in at|
|ic|least one extra-marital "fling" approaches 50%. The percentage of opposite-sex marriages in which both partners are monogamous is less |
|] |than 50%. |
|[p|The belief that same-sex partners cannot be monogamous appears to be based on a misuse of statistical data. A "lifestyle" is a way of |
|ic|life that an individual chooses for themselves. Examples are whether to live in the country or city; whether to work for a company or |
|] |be self employed; whether to be married or remain single, etc. There is a general consensus among gays, lesbians, religious liberals, |
| |human sexuality researchers, and therapists that sexual orientation is fixed and not chosen. So, homosexuality itself cannot |
| |legitimately be referred to as a "lifestyle" for the simple reason that it is not chosen. However, within the gay and lesbian |
| |community, as within the heterosexual community, there exist two main, identifiable lifestyles: married couples and singles. Various |
| |surveys have shown that the average adult single gay man does have many sexual partners per year. However, the average gay or lesbian |
| |in a committed relationship has few, if any, sexual experiences other than with their spouse. |

5. The purpose of marriage is procreation. Same-sex spouses cannot bring children into the world by themselves:
The Hon. Marisa Ferretti Barth, a Canadian Member of Parliament stated: "Unfortunately, society has a tendency today to forget the importance of marriage. It is more than the simple union between two people. Marriage is the public joining together of a man and a woman who want to found a family, to have children and so ensure that the family will continue into future generations....Long before the founding of Canada, both the Protestant and the Catholic churches had established that marriage was an exclusive union between a man and a woman who freely agreed to become one flesh so that they could have children and provide each other with 'mutual society, help and comfort. ' Throughout Canadian history, the Christian concept of marriage has occupied an important place, and still today is one of the foundation stones of Canadian society." 11 This is an argument from Natural Law: Opposite-sex couples can have children but no same-sex couples can have their own children. Because the latter cannot achieve the sole purpose of marriage -- to procreate -- they have no right to be married.
As Joe Volpe, Canadian Member of Parliament wrote: "...marriage cannot be treated like any other invention or program of government. Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it 's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children (barring a medical anomaly or will). No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party....for most MPs, marriage remains the cornerstone of society, not some government response to the most recent lobby." 12
|[pi|A lesbian or a male gay couple cannot procreate. But then, neither can a man and woman where one is infertile, either for a medical |
|c] |reason or because of age. Some opposite-gender couples marry and decide to never have a child between them. Many infertile couples, |
| |both same-sex and opposite-sex can become pregnant if they attend a fertility clinic. |
|[pi|According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of infertile married couples of childbearing age in the U.S. was |
|c] |2.1 million. 5 Some of these couples are able to have children of their own through in-vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial |
| |insemination, etc. However, many are not. If the state feels that couples should not be able to marry unless they can produce |
| |children, then they should logically require fertility tests before a marriage license is issued. |
|[pi|A very substantial minority of married heterosexual couples can no longer conceive because the wife is past menopause, or the husband |
|c] |has had a vasectomy, or for some other reason. Many heterosexual couples get married later in life when conception is not an option. |
| |If the state feels that the purpose of marriage is procreation, it would be logical to not allow these couples to remain married or to|
| |marry. |
|[pi|Many heterosexual couples decide to remain childless when they marry. They may be heavily involved in their careers; they may realize |
|c] |that they carry poor genes that they would not want to pass on to a child; etc. There are many reasons why they might make this |
| |lifestyle choice. If the state asserts that procreation is the purpose of marriage, then they should logically extract a promise from |
| |each potential bride and groom that they will seriously have attempt to have children in the future. |
|[pi|Many gay and lesbian partners do have children. Some bring children from former marriages into their new partnership. Many lesbian |
|c] |spouses are becoming pregnant with donated sperm. Some gay couples are having children via surrogate motherhood. These couples would |
| |presumably fulfill the states insistence that the purpose of marriage is procreation. |
|[pi|The State of Hawaii 's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" studied this issue and wrote: "The argument that |
|c] |same-sex marriage should be barred because it cannot lead to procreation is invalid, inconsistent, and discriminatory. Public policy |
| |should not deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and the right to raise a family if they wish to do so, on the excuse that they,|
| |between themselves, cannot procreate, when this reason is not applied to opposite-gender couples. State law does not require that |
| |opposite-sex couples prove that they are capable of procreation before they can be married, and many are obviously not, because of |
| |age, medical or other reasons. Individuals in a same- gender marriage may have children from a prior opposite-gender marriage, or can |
| |adopt children if they desire a family." 7 |
|[pi|Mr. Justice Robert Blair of the Superior Court of Ontario wrote: "There is much more to marriage as a societal institution, in my |
|c] |view, than the act of heterosexual intercourse leading to the birth of children. Moreover, the authorities are clear that marriage is |
| |not dependent upon the presence of children." 10 |

6. The "slippery slope" concern:
If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygamy, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.
|[pi|Prior to 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day|
|c] |Saints, (a.k.a. LDS and the Mormons) introduced polygamy as the preferred family structure. This was legal in Utah before it was |
| |admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to suspend polygamy for an indefinite |
| |period. However, during the half century that polygamy was legally practiced, the other practices mentioned above never developed. |
|[pi|In British Columbia, Canada, there are Mormon groups who were excommunicated decades ago by the main LDS church because they practice |
|c] |polygamy. They still live in plural marriages. Their practice never expanded into other parts of British Columbia society with no |
| |opposition from the provincial government. Other marital structures never developed. |
|[pi|Marriage is precisely what the courts and legislatures choose to define it to be. Legislation can define it to be "the voluntary union|
|c] |for life of one man and one woman. In that case, same sex couples would be denied the opportunity to marry. But, a law can also be |
| |written to define marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." This was suggested by the |
| |Ontario Court of Appeal on 2003-JUN-10 when they legalized same-sex marriage for the first time. 8 Legislatures can then define |
| |circumstances in which two people might not be allowed to marry -- e.g. they are two closely related genetically, or if they are too |
| |young. |

7. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents will become homosexual adults:
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Children raised in families headed by gay or lesbian parents will be immersed in the gay lifestyle and be more likely to choose to become homosexuals themselves when they grow up.
|[p|Gays, lesbians, religious liberals, human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists have essentially reached a consensus that |
|ic|a person does not choose their sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Studies have shown that children |
|] |raised in gay or lesbian homes share a number of behaviors as adults: |
| |[pic] |
| |They tend to discriminate less on matters of race, gender or sexual orientation. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |They tend to be more sexually experimental before marriage. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |The percentage of children who grow up to be gay or lesbian is the same as in the general population. |
| | |
|[p|Of course, if society accepts persons of all sexual orientations as full human beings deserving of respect, then it would not matter |
|ic|whether the children of gay and lesbian-led families became homosexuals later in life. |
|] | |

References: 1. Ken Connor, "A final word..." Ken Connor, Family Research Council Washington Update, 2003-JUL-11. Washington Post, 2001-SEP-4, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ 2. Mentioned in a letter to the editor of First Things magazine, 1999-DEC, by reader Mark Peterson. Issue 98, Page 5. 3. Anon, "Acceptance Of Homosexual Marriage," at: http://www.freeessays.cc/ 4. "Courts Poised to Decide Lawsuits on Same-Sex Marriage," Human Rights Campaign, 2003, at: http://www.hrc.org/ 5. Roxanne Nelson, "Financing infertility," 1999-MAY-19, CNN.com, at: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/ 6. The State of Hawaii 's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" is available at: http://www.state.hi.us/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt4.html 7. "Docket: C39172 and C39174, Between Hedy Halpern...." Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2003-JUN-10, at: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ 8. Eileen Durgin-Clinchard, "Bibliography of articles on gay and lesbian parenting," at: http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm 9. Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues. Pages 239 & 240 (1992) 10. The judgment of the court, dated 2002-JUL 12, is reported at 60 O.R. (3d) 321. 11. "Bill to remove certain doubts regarding the meaning of marriage," 2002-JUN-13, http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/ 12. Joe Volpe, "We 're for due process, not against gay rights," The Globe and Mail, 2003-AUG-12, at: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
8. Homosexual activity is a capital offense in the Bible:
There are at least six references to homosexuality scattered throughout the Bible. All are negative. Leviticus 20:13 states, "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." (Living Bible): The New Living Translation says: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense." How can we allow gays and lesbians to marry if the Bible calls on them to be executed?
|[pi|Those are accurate quotations from two of the more popular English translations of the Bible. However, they are also excellent |
|c] |examples of how translators allow their own personal prejudices to affect their judgment. The Living Bible and New Living Translation |
| |refer to homosexuals -- i.e. to male gays and lesbians. But the original Hebrew refers only to two men having sex. Lesbians do not |
| |appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament). So, based on this passage, there would be no objection to two lesbians |
| |marrying. |
|[pi|There are many similar verses in Leviticus which describe the Mosaic Code and use the Hebrew word "to 'ebah" to condemn certain |
|c] |behaviors: sharing a meal with a person of another religion, eating shrimp or lobster, getting a tattoo, wearing a cotton and |
| |polyester shirt, planting a mixture of grass seeds in your front lawn, etc. None of these behaviors are still considered "ritually |
| |impure" today. The passage may well be null and void. |
|[pi|There is a lack of consensus on the meaning of the verse. Some believe that it prohibits two men from having sex on a woman 's bed, but|
|c] |not in other locations. |
|[pi|This passage is interpreted by many mainline and liberal theologians as referring only to ritual sex between two men in a Pagan |
|c] |temple. |
|[pi|A denomination which interprets this passage as condemning all sexual acts between two men could certainly use it as a justification |
|c] |to refuse to marry a same-sex male couple. But the U.S. and Canada are not theocracies. What the Christian Scriptures (New Testament),|
| |Torah, Qur 'an, or any other holy book says about homosexuality is immaterial when governments create legislation on marriage. The |
| |Constitutions must be adhered to. |
|[pi|More information about the Bible and same-sex behavior is available. |
|c] | |

9. Almost everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral:
The vast majority of the faith groups in North America -- over 1,500 strong -- condemn homosexual behavior as a serious sin, hated by God. We cannot reward such behavior by allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
|[pi|While it is true that conservative religious groups condemn homosexual behavior, refuse to conduct union or marriage ceremonies for |
|c] |same-sex couples, and refuse to ordain active homosexuals to the clergy, this is not true of all faith groups. In fact liberal groups |
| |such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, American Humanist Association, American Atheists, etc. |
| |promote equal rights for persons and couples of all sexual orientations. Many mainline churches are actively debating their stand on |
| |these matters. |
|[pi|Neither the United States nor Canada is a theocracy. Thus legislation cannot be based on a particular religious faith 's concept of |
|c] |morality and correctness, or their belief in what their God expects. The recent, 2003-JUN-26, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in |
| |the Lawrence v. Texas case implied that the state has no business in making laws that enforce religious concepts of morality by |
| |restricting private, consensual sexual behavior by adults. That ruling may indicate that laws giving special privileges to |
| |opposite-sex couples may be unconstitutional. |
|[pi|The State of Hawaii 's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" studied this issue and wrote: "Under our |
|c] |constitutional government the fact that some religions or churches condemn same-gender marriages does not mean that those religious |
| |beliefs can be imposed on others. Our separation of church and state prevents religious enforcement through state institutions, such |
| |as the Department of Health. Furthermore, the Constitution prohibits any religious group from having to perform the marriage of a |
| |couple that is not recognized by that religion." |

10. Same sex marriage would be a radical change to society:
When same-sex marriages were considered in Hawaii, a conservative Christian organization, Hawaii 's Future Today (HFT), filed a brief with the court in opposition. They said, in part, that same-sex marriage would introduce "a radical reform in the basic institution of marriage, jettisoning long-recognized cultural values and drastically redefining the fundamental structure of our society..." They stated that the government has a compelling interest in "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values." 6
|[pi|The essence of this argument is that because we have not allowed same-sex couples to marry in the past, that we should not allow them |
|c] |to marry in the future. If this logic were followed, slavery would still be practiced, men would be able to rape their wives with |
| |impunity, women would be prohibited from entering many professions, and non-virgin brides would be stoned to death today in North |
| |America. |
|[pi|Author Andrew Sullivan wrote: "The introduction of gay marriage would not be some sort of leap in the dark, a massive societal risk. |
|c] |Homosexual marriages have always existed, in a variety of forms; they have just been euphemized. Increasingly they exist in every |
| |sense but the legal one. As it has become more acceptable for homosexuals to acknowledge their loves and commitments publicly, more |
| |and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and friends. A law institutionalizing gay |
| |marriage would merely reinforce a healthy trend." 10 |
|[pi|As noted elsewhere on this website, significant changes to the institution of marriage have occurred in the past as injustices were |
|c] |overcome. Society survived. In fact, if we were to reinstate the laws of an earlier time, and reintroduce polygamy, ban marriage for |
| |Afro-Americans, and prohibit mixed race couples from marrying, there would be a wall of opposition from the public. |
|[pi|Like all institutions, marriage must change and adapt to meet the needs and values of the society. In their 2003-JUN-10 ruling which |
|c] |allowed same-sex couples to marry, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that: "...to freeze the definition of marriage to whatever |
| |meaning it had in 1867 [the date of Canada 's confederation] is contrary to this country’s jurisprudence of progressive constitutional |
| |interpretation....The task of expounding a constitution is crucially different from that of construing a statute. A statute defines |
| |present rights and obligations. It is easily enacted and as easily repealed. A constitution, by contrast, is drafted with an eye to |
| |the future. Its function is to provide a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power and, when joined by a |
| |Bill or a Charter of Rights, for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties. Once enacted, its provisions cannot |
| |easily be repealed or amended. It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and |
| |historical realities often unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and must, in interpreting its |
| |provisions, bear these considerations in mind." |

11. The government has an interest in preserving the status quo:
The government has a compelling interest to preserve the status quo in marriage -- to reserve it as a special privilege of opposite-sex couples and to deny it to same-sex couples. The brief by Hawaii 's Future Today also stated that the government has a compelling interest in "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values." 6
|[p|The status quo in North America has shifted since 2003-JUN-10. On that date, a court in Ontario Canada declared that marriage licenses |
|ic|could be obtained by any adult couple -- same sex or opposite sex. So, in Ontario at lest, the status quo allows same-sex marriage. |
|] |British Columbia followed suit on JUL-9. |
|[p|The report of the Hawaiian Sexual Orientation and the Law Committee stated that: "The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that denial of |
|ic|same-gender marriage was presumed to be a violation of equal protection of the law unless the State could show a 'compelling state |
|] |interest ' for such denial. The Commission finds that the various reasons advanced for denying same-gender marriages, including |
| |religious, moral and public health and safety, are similar to the Loving [v. Virginia] case and do not constitute a 'compelling state |
| |interest ' and, as a matter of public policy, should not be used to deny equal rights under the law to same-gender couples." 7 The |
| |Loving case involved an interracial couple who pleaded guilty to the "crime" of marrying a person of another race and were sentenced to|
| |a one year jail sentence by a Virginia court. |
|[p|The ruling of the Court of Appeal for Ontario referred to the Attorney General of Canada 's assertion "...that marriage relates to the |
|ic|capacities, needs and circumstances of opposite-sex couples. The concept of marriage - across time, societies and legal cultures - is |
|] |that of an institution to facilitate, shelter and nurture the unique union of a man and woman who, together, have the possibility to |
| |bear children from their relationship and shelter them within it." The court rejected this argument for several reasons, including: |
| |[pic] |
| |Laws must always be viewed by the court from the perspective of the claimant. The existing marriage legislation clearly discriminated |
| |against the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |The government 's duty is to justify a breach of human dignity, not to explain it or deny its existence. This the government failed to |
| |do. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the...view...that same-sex couples are not capable of forming loving and |
| |lasting relationships, and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships|
| | |
| |The court concluded that: "Accordingly, in our view, the common law requirement that marriage be between persons of the opposite sex |
| |does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples. This factor weighs in favour of a finding of |
| |discrimination." |

12. Giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples is justified:
In the ruling of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Justices referred to an assertion by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC). He correctly pointed out that opposite-sex couples raise the vast majority of children. Thus the government is justified in giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples by allowing them to marry and granting them many financial benefits.
|[pi|The court rejected the AGC 's submission. They wrote: "The critical question to be asked...is whether opposite-sex couples are in a |
|c] |more disadvantaged position than same-sex couples....same-sex couples are a group who have experienced historical discrimination and |
| |disadvantages. There is no question that opposite-sex couples are the more advantaged group....In our view, any economic disadvantage |
| |that may arise from raising children is only one of many factors to be considered in the context of marriage. Persons do not marry |
| |solely for the purpose of raising children. Furthermore, since same-sex couples also raise children, it cannot be assumed that they do|
| |not share that economic disadvantage. Accordingly, if alleviating economic disadvantages for opposite-sex couples due to childrearing |
| |were to be considered an ameliorative purpose for the opposite-sex requirement in marriage, we would find the law to be |
| |underinclusive. The principle from Law that '[u]nderinclusive ameliorative legislation that excludes from its scope the members of a |
| |historically disadvantaged group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination ' would be applicable." |

13: Marriage has always been between one man and one woman:
Every society down through history has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. We don 't want to mess with an institution that has as old a heritage as marriage.
|[pi|This is a surprisingly widespread belief. But it is wrong. "Evidence from other cultures and other times demonstrates that same-sex |
|c] |marriages are neither unprecedented nor unnatural." In fact, they were widespread: |
| |[pic] |
| |"Same-sex unions in ancient Egypt were recognized as marriages." |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |"Same-sex unions were an integral part of the cultures of classical Greece and republican Rome and imperial Rome..." |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Many African tribes have recognized lesbian marriages. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Native Americans opened marriage to same-sex couples before the arrival of the Christian missionaries. 9 |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |The HFT report also implied that that marriage in Hawaii has always meant one man and one woman. Yet Aikane, close male societal and |
| |sexual relationships, were an accepted part of ancient Hawaiian culture, before the arrival of the Christian missionaries in the 19th |
| |century. 6 |
| | |
|[pi|The Hebrew Scriptures describe eight different family structures, of which only one is a one-man one-woman marriage. None of these |
|c] |were criticized in the biblical text. |
|[pi|Mr. Justice Harry Laforme of the Ontario Superior Court wrote: "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity|
|c] |of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy|
| |to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage.... 11 |

14: Same-sex marriage is just plain disgusting.
The thoughts of a man engaging in sex with another man makes my stomach heave and skin crawl. It is disgusting. I feel the same way about two lesbians having sex. Nobody in the world will respect our country if we allow this behavior to be institutionalized.
|[p|The feelings of revulsion at same-sex behavior are widespread in our culture. That is because over 90% of the population is |
|ic|heterosexual. i.e. they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. A side-effect of heterosexual orientation is often an intense |
|] |aversion to thoughts of same-sex behavior. |
|[p|But that is only part of the story. Revulsion at same-sex behavior is not an absolute response found universally throughout our |
|ic|culture. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. Many have a strong aversion to the|
|] |thoughts of opposite-sex behavior. |
|[p|Making a commitment to each other, deciding to live together, engaging in sexual behavior are very personal matters about which people |
|ic|differ greatly. It is important that we comprehend the diversity of people 's sexuality. |
|] | |

References: 1. Ken Connor, "A final word..." Ken Connor, Family Research Council Washington Update, 2003-JUL-11. Washington Post, 2001-SEP-4, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ 2. Mentioned in a letter to the editor of First Things magazine, 1999-DEC, by reader Mark Peterson. Issue 98, Page 5. 3. Anon, "Acceptance Of Homosexual Marriage," at: http://www.freeessays.cc/ 4. "Courts Poised to Decide Lawsuits on Same-Sex Marriage," Human Rights Campaign, 2003, at: http://www.hrc.org/ 5. Roxanne Nelson, "Financing infertility," 1999-MAY-19, CNN.com, at: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/ 6. Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief by Hawaii 's Future Today circa 1996-OCT. See our essay on the brief. 7. The State of Hawaii 's "Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" is available at: http://www.state.hi.us/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt4.html 8. "Docket: C39172 and C39174, Between Hedy Halpern...." Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2003-JUN-10, at: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ 9. William Eskridge, "Case for same-sex marriage," Free Press, (1996), Page 5. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store 10. Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," Alfred A. Knopf, (1995), Page 183. 11. The judgment of the court, dated 2002-JUL 12, is reported at 60 O.R. (3d) 321.
15. Same-sex marriage (SSM) simply costs too much:
When people marry, the state or province automatically grants them about 500 benefits; the federal government gives them about 1,000 more. This would be a drain on the economy -- one that we cannot afford.
|[pi|About 5% of the adults of North America are gay; another 3% or so are bisexual. It is these populations that would enter into same-sex|
|c] |marriage. As for heterosexuals: |
| |[pic] |
| |Some would choose the single lifestyle. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Some would prefer to simply live together without marriage. |
| | |
| |SSM is so new that it is impossible to estimate how many gay and lesbian couples will choose to be married. Even if half of the |
| |homosexuals decide to marry, and one quarter of the bisexuals decided to marry same-sex partners, then SSM would still only constitute|
| |less than 4% of all marriages. The total cost of benefits to these couples would be minimal, compared to the cost of benefits to the |
| |96% of marriages which would be by opposite-sex couples. |
|[pi|If the goal is for the government to save money by reducing marital benefits, a much more lucrative approach would be to prohibit |
|c] |marriages in which one spouse is left-handed, or one spouse is blonde. That would involve a larger number of couples, and save the |
| |governments much more money than SSM would cost. Similarly, we could go back to the situation in 1966 and prohibit inter-racial |
| |couples from marrying in some states. We could go back to the culture of 1850 and prohibit African-Americans from marrying. We would |
| |save a bundle of money. But elementary justice prohibits us from doing this. |
|[pi|It is profoundly immoral for the government to collect money in the form of taxes from individuals and couples of all sexual |
|c] |orientations, and then to dispense special privileges to opposite-sex couples only. |

16: Same-sex marriage would irreparably harm marriage forever:
Some religious conservatives talk in terms of protecting marriage. Others talk in terms of the devastating effect that same-sex marriage would have on the institution.
|[p|Mr. Justice Harry Laforme of the Ontario Superior Court wrote: "I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and |
|ic|interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. I cannot conclude that freedom of |
|] |religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage." |
|[p|In Ontario and British Columbia, where gays and lesbians are free to marry, no opposite-sex couple has been denied permission to marry,|
|ic|except for the usual requirements related to their age and genetic relationship. No opposite-sex couple has been denied any of the |
|] |benefits of marriage which were due them. Some observers feel that the provinces have become more supportive of the needs of loving |
| |couples and their children since same-sex marriage was legalized. |
|[p|Bill Graham, the Canadian federal Foreign Affairs Minister, became the second federal minister to lend support to same-sex marriage. He|
|ic|said on 2002-AUG-5: "I respect those who believe in the integrity of [same-sex] marriage. That is a very important institution for us |
|] |as Canadians, and for society. I think it is equally important that gay and lesbian people who are in an affectionate relationship over|
| |time want to commit themselves to that relationship." Commenting on the past granting of equality to gays and lesbians, Graham said: |
| |"It started with changes to the Criminal Code and hate crimes legislation, and then was followed by changes to the human rights code |
| |and substantial changes to the Pension Act and other acts to provide essentially the equivalent of common law marriage status to gay |
| |and lesbian couples, equal to that of a heterosexual common-law union. It [same sex marriage] is the final part of the picture." He |
| |noted that some Canadians are concerned of social chaos if same-sex marriage is approved. He noted that previous equity legislation |
| |also engendered similar dire predictions, but caused barely a ripple after taking effect. 2 |

17: Almost all of the churches are opposed to SSM:
Diane Knippers, of the conservative Christian Institute on Religion and Democracy, wrote: "The message of the universal Christian Church on marriage and human sexuality is crystal clear. It’s not simply the teaching of the largest churches--Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical. It’s also the other more liberal “mainline” Protestant churches..." Only the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is only partly Christian, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, and Reform Judaism favor SSM. The Episcopal Church is expected to authorize the creation of a ritual to bless same-sex marriages at its 2003 General Convention. All, or almost all, of the other 1,000 or so Judeo-Christian religious groups in North America oppose SSM.
|[p|This is true. Very few religious denominations support SSM. But this is totally expected, because the fight for equal rights for gays, |
|ic|lesbians, and bisexuals has barely begun. If you research every significant social change in North America with a religious and/or |
|] |moral component, you will find that it is secularists and those faith groups who place great emphasis on human rights and justice who |
| |first embrace change. This happened with the Quakers, Mennonites, and Unitarians over the abolition slavery; initially, all of the |
| |other Christian churches were in favor of preserving slavery. But the abolition movement grew with the eventual support from a broad |
| |range of denominations. A similar transition has happened in the 20th century over women 's suffrage, the availability of birth control,|
| |abortion access, and now equal rights for homosexuals, including the right of loving, committed gay and lesbian couples to marry. What |
| |Ms. Knipper is saying is that we are early in the process, and that -- to date -- only the most liberal denominations have supported |
| |SSM. The rest will eventually follow. Consider how many denominations today oppose interracial marriage. Yet it was illegal as recently|
| |as 1967 in some states. |

18: Sex between a man and woman is the heart of marriage:
Diane Knippers also mentioned: "Sexual intercourse is intended as the expression of the very powerful physical force that bonds a man and a woman into the most essential, basic, and universal unit of human society. It ensures the propagation of the human race--and joins parents to the common task of rearing children. Ultimately, it creates a mystical one-flesh union between a man and a woman, a union in which two bodies, exquisitely designed precisely for one another, are joined in self-giving love and generous pleasure." 4 The implication is that sex does not have these functions in a SSM.
|[p|Sexual expression is precisely the same "very powerful physical force" that usually bonds couples, whether opposite-gendered, gay or |
|ic|lesbian. |
|] | |
|[p|Along with the approximately 2.1 million infertile married couples of childbearing age in the U.S., lesbian couples need assistance in |
|ic|the form of artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization to have children. But many go this route. |
|] | |
|[p|Sexual behavior certainly can create "....a mystical one-flesh union between a man and a woman in which two bodies "are joined in |
|ic|self-giving love and generous pleasure." But exactly the same phenomenon occurs between two lesbian spouses or gay spouses. Just |
|] |befriend a same-sex couple and ask. |
|[p|Sex is an important part of marriage. But it is only one part. It is the sharing, the commitment, the planning, the supporting, the |
|ic|sacrificing, and other factors which form the main components of marriage. These are present in all intimate and successful |
|] |opposite-sex and same-sex marriages. |

19: SSM will damage international relations:
Mel Middleton, apparently of the Canada Family Action Coalition in Alberta described the 2003-JUN decision of the Government of Canada to legalize SSM as: "...a knife in the back to our democratic allies in the third world." Speaking to pro-democracy individuals in East Africa he found that most believe that the Canadian "government 's decision is going to make it extremely difficult for democrats in oppressive third world countries such as Sudan to counter the charges that their oppressors are certain to make -- that 'western democracy ' leads to decadence, moral depravity and societal decay." 6
|[pi|There are many factors in western cultures that people in some dictatorships and theocracies in the third world are mystified by: |
|c] |[pic] |
| |Allowing individuals to openly proselytize persons of other religions. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Permitting people to change their religion freely. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Allowing Atheists and others write and lecture about the non-existence of God. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Restricting a man to only one wife. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Allowing a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |Permitting a couple to marry without prior approval from their families. |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| |etc. |
| | |
| |Allowing two loving, committed same-sex couples to marry only adds one more item to this list. |

20: SSM legislation will permit incestuous marriages:
Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Montreal, talked to the press about SSM at a news conference arranged by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is quoted as saying: "When you change the definition of the institution, you open the door to things you can 't foresee. If marriage is a union between two persons who love each other - that 's the new definition, without the allusion to sex - where does the notion stop? Will you recognize the marriage between a father and his daughter? Between a brother and his sister? Or two brothers or two sisters?...It 's very dangerous because we don 't know the consequences." 7
|[pi|Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon responded to the Archbishop 's concerns. He told reporters in Calgary AB that both marriage |
|c] |and sex between a parent and child or two siblings is illegal. "The question that they raise is an offence based under the Criminal |
| |Code....I see no connection to what we are doing." 7 |
|[pi|The Archbishop 's comments moved Shelley Sullivan of Oakville ON to write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star which said: "If |
|c] |the marriage of two persons could lead to incest through the marriage of brother and sister, or father and daughter, how is it that |
| |the current definition of marriage, a man and a woman, does not exclude the possibility?...The answer is quite simple: The law |
| |excludes it and that would not change." 8 |
|[pi|Kathleen Lahey, a law professor at Queen 's University at Kingston, who was involved in the British Columbia SSM case said that the |
|c] |Archbishop is trying to reduce the concept to "its most absurd extreme...It is not a credible argument...I know of no example anywhere|
| |in the world in which opening marriage to same-sex couples has led to opening marriage to incestuous relationships, or the other |
| |argument that is often made, polygamous relationships." 7 |

References: 1. The judgment of the court, dated 2002-JUL 12, is reported at 60 O.R. (3d) 321. 2. Nicholaas van Rijn, "Graham backs gay marriage: Foreign affairs minister second to voice support," The Toronto Star, 2002-AUG-6, Page A8. 3. The Institute on Religion and Democracy has a web site at: http://www.ird-renew.org/ 4. Diane Knippers, "Sex and the Episcopalians. Is it really too much to ask for the Church to uphold and defend traditional marriage?," Beliefnet, 2003-AUG-3, at: http://www.beliefnet.com/ 5. Roxanne Nelson, "Financing infertility," 1999-MAY-19, CNN.com, at: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/ 6. Mel Middleton, "Some extremely pertinent questions (unanswered by government) raised about 'homosexual marriage '," Canada Family Action Coalition, undated, at: http://www.familyaction.org/ 7. Michelle MacAfee, "Catholic bishops say same-sex marriage could open door to incest," 2003-SEP-10, at: http://www.recorder.ca/ 8. Shelley Sullivan, "Catholic 's logic badly confused," The Toronto Star, 2003-SEP-12, Page A27.
Arguments for Same-sex marriage and rebuttals: Overview:
Although the eligibility for marriage has undergone many major changes during the existence of the U.S. and Canada, and although Natives practiced same-sex marriage extensively before the European invasion, federal, state and provincial laws in North America have always restricted marriage to partners of opposite gender. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia began to issue marriage licenses and to record the marriages of same-sex couples in mid-2003. This has raised the level of public debate on the advisability of SSM.
The following arguments have been asserted in favor of SSM. Rebuttals follow each point, and based on the assumptions that homosexuality is a changeable, chosen, addictive lifestyle and behavior. These are the beliefs of most religious conservatives. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers generally believe that homosexuality is fixed, unchosen, sexual orientation. The latter will probably disagree with most of the rebuttals.
1. No opposite-sex marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage (SSM)
SSM is an "add on." Opposite-sex couples will be able to marry and obtain all of the benefits that they have always received. The fact that somewhere down your street a loving gay or lesbian couple has decided to get married can have no significant impact on your own marriage.
|[p|Allowing gays and lesbians to marry cheapens marriage. As Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family said: "If marriage means |
|ic|everything, it means absolutely nothing." It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the |
|] |institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply "live together." |

2. Marriage is a fundamental human right:
Across North America, couples meet, enjoy each other 's company, date, form an exclusive relationship, and live together. Many want to marry, settled down and raise children. The right to marry the person whom you love, whom you have made a commitment to, and whom you wish to live with for the rest of your life is a foundational human right. Yet, as of 2003-JUL-12, it is a right that can only be exercised in the Western Hemisphere by traveling to Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Gays and lesbians have an intrinsic right to marry. Author Andrew Sullivan wrote: "...marriage has become a way in which the state recognizes an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals." 5
|[pi|"Marriage" has always meant the union of one man and one woman. |
|c] | |
|[pi|Gay and lesbian children cannot perform the main function of marriage which is to produce children of their own. |
|c] | |
|[pi|Opposite-sex married couples have always formed foundational institution in our countries. |
|c] | |
|[pi|The book of Genesis records that opposite-sex marriage was the first institution that God created. Same-sex marriage is not mentioned |
|c] |in the Bible. |

3. Same-sex marriages bolster the economy:
On 2000-JUL-1, civil unions became available to gay and lesbian couples in the state of Vermont. It is a partial marriage arrangement; the spouses do not receive any of the over 1,000 federal benefits that married people obtain through marriage. "...while the impact of civil unions on the Vermont economy is hard to quantify precisely, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that it has given a significant bump to tourism in certain parts of the state." 1
|[p|A state or country can also boost their tourist business by legalizing prostitution, allowing physician assisted suicide, legalizing |
|ic|street drugs, or decriminalizing child molesting. But that does not make any of these sinful behaviors right. |
|] | |

4. Same-sex marriage has a civilizing influence on the country:
Canada and the U.S. are multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic societies. To paraphrase William Eskridge, Jr. in his book "The case for same-sex marriage:" North American society is a synergy of African, Chinese, English, Filipino, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Jewish, Mexican, Native American, Puerto Rican and other cultures; of Black, Caucasian, and other races; of Islam, Judaism, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and other religions; of people with bisexual heterosexual, and homosexual orientations; etc. Most of these segments of society have been militantly opposed in the past by the majority. Consider North America 's "history of anti-Semitism, nativist sentiment against new immigrants, and interracial prejudice. Time after time, group hatred has been replaced by group acceptance and cooperation. Cooperating with others, people learn and grow....The history we...point to with pride is a history of accommodation and inclusion. The history...we would rather forget, and should try to correct, is our history of prejudice and exclusion." 2 Oppression of, and discrimination against, gays and lesbians is the last major hurdle for us to overcome in order to become a fully accepting society. Anton N. Marco, of Christian Leadership Ministries, calls same-sex marriage "The Last Cultural Frontier." 3
|[p|Most conservative Christians, and some others, believe that homosexuality is a chosen, sinful, God-denying lifestyle. If we allow gays |
|ic|and lesbians to marry, then essentially all social impediments which discourage this lifestyle will be removed. More youths will choose|
|] |to become homosexual. AIDS and other STDs will increase. More people will enter a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive |
| |lifestyle. |

5. Same-sex marriage would increase the quality of life of same-sex couples:
"To Have and to Hold," a pamphlet distributed by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, states that: "If legally married, gay, lesbian and bisexual couples would have a greater ability to care for and protect their families. The pamphlet mentions many items of financial benefit, including: file joint tax returns; obtain joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; inherit automatically in the absence of a will; secure workplace and other benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, Medicare; enter jointly into leases and other contracts, such as apartment and car rental agreements; obtain bereavement leave when a partner or child dies; receive divorce protections, etc. In addition, there are many non-financial benefits: being able to visit one 's spouse in hospital; being able to handle funeral arrangements of one 's spouse; obtaining domestic violence protection orders; being recognized as as the next-of-kin for hospital visits; making medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, etc.
|[pi|Such benefits merely make homosexual lifestyle more attractive and thus will encourage more youths and young adults to choose a |
|c] |homosexual lifestyle. |

6. Same-sex marriage would improve the lives of children in SSM families:
With marriage comes the right to raise children together including: joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation privileges. If the marriage ends in divorce, then settlements can be obtained that assure economic protection of the children via child support.
|[p|Most conservative Christians, and some others, believe that homosexuality is a chosen, sinful, God-denying lifestyle. If we allow gays |
|ic|and lesbians to marry, then any children that they bring into the marriage will be brought up in the homosexual lifestyle. |
|] | |
|[p|Both parents would be of the same gender. The children of the family would miss the needed influence of an opposite-sex parent. |
|ic| |
|] | |
|[p|Being raised in a gay or lesbian household, the children will more likely choose to become homosexuals later in life. |
|ic| |
|] | |

7. SSM would reduce the amount of promiscuity in the gay community:
Gays, lesbians, religious liberals, mental health therapists and human sexuality researchers generally agree that homosexuality itself is a fixed, unchosen orientation, not a changeable chosen lifestyle. That said, there are two lifestyles within the homosexual community, as there is within the heterosexual community: single and married. Surveys show that single male gay adults have, on average, a large number of sexual partners. Making SSM available will encourage them to form lasting relationships, marry, and become monogamous.
|[p|Surveys show that homosexuals in committed relationships are rarely monogamous. |
|ic| |
|] | |
|[p|We should encourage gays and lesbians to enter reparative therapy and become heterosexuals. SSM would make this less likely. |
|ic| |
|] | |

8. SSM would decrease the incidence of STDs in the gay community:
As for the preceding argument, the availability of SSM would encourage more homosexuals to form long-term partnerships, become married, and leave the single lifestyle. This would reduce the number of sexual partners, and thus the incidence of STD transmission. SSM would have more of an effect on male gays than on lesbians, because the rate of STD infection among lesbians is already low -- lower than that for heterosexuals.
|[p|Again, surveys show that homosexuals in long-term relationships are rarely monogamous. |
|ic| |
|] | |

References: 1. Sally Johnson, "Civil unions bring dollars into Vermont," The Barre Montpelier Times Argus, 2003-JUN-26, at: http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/67689.html 2. William Eskridge, "Case for same-sex marriage," Free Press, (1996). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store 3. Anton N. Marco, "Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?" Christian Leadership Ministries, at: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage1.html 4. "To Have and to Hold," A pamphlet distributed by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, (1995). 5. Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," Alfred A. Knopf, (1995), Page 183.

References: 1. Sally Johnson, "Civil unions bring dollars into Vermont," The Barre Montpelier Times Argus, 2003-JUN-26, at: http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/67689.html 2. William Eskridge, "Case for same-sex marriage," Free Press, (1996). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store 3. Anton N. Marco, "Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?" Christian Leadership Ministries, at: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage1.html 4. "To Have and to Hold," A pamphlet distributed by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, (1995). 5. Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," Alfred A. Knopf, (1995), Page 183.