Letters to the Editor

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Vote for traditional marriage, reject R-71

To the editor:

Although some state legislatures and courts have endorsed gay marriage, citizens have voted to reaffirm traditional marriage 30 out of 30 times, when an election is held — even in California. Could it be that in spite of all the efforts to convince us, people still know, deep down, what is needed to save our families and thereby our culture?

It might be easy to empathize with gays who want to marry and parent were it not for the fact that same sex unions destroy traditional marriages and families. An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same sex unions is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more children experimenting with and becoming homosexual. Not to mention the fact that they will be taught, in school, that homosexual unions are just as good as heterosexual ones — one of several equal choices.

There are many other unsettling aspects to the recognition of gay unions. Children raised by gay couples are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Gay-parented children are four to 10 times more likely to develop a non-heterosexual preference than normally parented children.

Partner abuse is much more common among gay couples, with more than half of lesbians reporting abuse by their partner. The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that of the heterosexual population. Do we truly wish to encourage, even honor, these aberrant and often unstable relationships with special protections and laws?

Committed gays split up at two to three times the rate of heterosexuals; and we all know how bad those numbers are. Only 5 percent of gay unions last over 20 years — a fraction of heterosexual relationships. Dutch studies found that the average “committed” gay union lasted 1.5 years and the participants averaged eight additional partners outside of these relationships — each year!

Now, picture this: there are reportedly 12,000 folks waiting to see if they will be able to pass on their health benefits and retirement to partners. Say that in a few years, 6,000 partners outlive the worker and receive a $35,000 retirement. How much is that every year? And don’t you think the number of “domestic partners” will explode? Business will be forced to follow the state example, adding to their costs and then, through prices, our cost. The price tag we are being told now for passing this legislation is a pittance compared to what it will actually be.

Cheapening the meaning of marriage has long-term consequences that can hardly be measured in terms of their pathologies. In European countries where same sex unions have been officially recognized, traditional marriage has declined tremendously. Over 60 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock in Scandinavia today. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that most children are being raised without the benefit of two heterosexual parents — with all of the normal psychological, emotional and socials problems resulting from that condition. The institution of marriage, long upheld as the best practice in all societies and throughout thousands of years of history, should not be given a new definition. It would damage our society, as it has others, if we continue down this path.

We, as a society, must redirect our compassion towards protecting our greatest resources, our children. As much as we might empathize with some homosexuals who want to marry and parent, it is unethical to experiment in ways that might send our young people down a path that places them in harm’s way. Even the Supreme Court, responding to a gay civil rights suit against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) stated: “The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state’s legitimate interest in procreation and the well-being of children.”

The safety of our children must trump the wishes of some adults. Although their rhetoric is cloaked in talk of “fairness,” it is not fair to harm our children and grandchildren’s futures or to weaken the fabric of our society just to indulge a vocal minority’s concept of what they consider fair. It is a social good to protect marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“The principled restraint of destructive desires is called, civilization.” Vote to Reject 71.

Nancy Thompson

Clinton

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Sep 13 edition online now. Browse the archives.