FPN Opposes Government-Created “Civil Unions”
Homosexual activists have changed their rhetoric regarding “gay marriage”. While it is still their end goal, they are now pushing for homosexual civil unions, a tactic that will incrementalize the steps toward homosexual marriage. They believe that this will give the American people time to adjust to each step along the way, making each subsequent step less shocking. The fact is, homosexual activists hope to gain all the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage by ‘upgrading’ the civil unions laws to include homosexual partners. This policy paper explains the reasons for Family Policy Network’s (FPN) opposition to such legislation and policy.
REASONS WHY “GAY” CIVIL UNIONS ARE JUST AS BAD AS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Civil unions are the gateway to marriage
Referred to as “shadow marriage” by some homosexual activists, homosexual civil unions/domestic partnerships are no different than traditional marriage. This is evidenced in the language of the bills in California and Vermont authorizing those institutions for homosexuals:
CALIFORNIA:
Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. (1)
VERMONT:
Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. (2)
The concept of civil unions for homosexuals is a ploy by homosexual activists and cowardly legislators to stealthily redefine the family. Homosexual civil unions are a counterfeit that steal signifigance from the time-honored institution of marriage. Legalization of these civil unions will lead to wider acceptance of homosexuality, resulting in an increase in homosexual behavior. Once average Americans have been deceived into thinking there is no difference between marriage and civil unions, pro-family activists have lost the battle for the family.
Adoption rights are the next step for homosexuals; they aren’t fit to parent
While most people say that studies show that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well-adjusted and well-developed as children raised by heterosexual parents, these studies are inconclusive, and have been shown to be replete with flaws regarding methodology. Political agendas are evident in the findings of these studies. In the words of Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a homosexual advocacy group:
Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and iun the process transforming the very fabric of society. (3)
Even the American Psychological Association (APA), the group that removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, has admitted that the research regarding the effect of homosexual “parents” on children is flawed. In a report authored by Charlotte J. Patterson, a lesbian activist, she admits that “research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges.” She acknowledges that “questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters.” (4)
In another study, researchers analyzed fourteen different reports that studied homosexual “parenting” and subjected them to widely accepted standards regarding scientific research. They concluded that “all of the studies lacked external validity.” (5)
Studies show that homosexual relationships are unpredictable and irregular. Pro-family activists and citizens should recognize that homosexual couples are unfit to give children a proper and stable environment. Homosexual promiscuity is a major concern for most people who oppose “gay parenting.” In the Journal of Sex Research, researcher Paul Van de Ven and others found that for homosexuals, “the modal range for the number of sexual partners ever was 101-500.” The journal reported that 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had sex with between 501 and 1,000 partners, and another 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had been in sexual relations with over 1,000 partners in their lifetime. [emphasis added] (6)
Quite frankly, evidence indicates that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. Although that assertion would most likely be met with horror and criticism by homosexual advocates who deny that homosexuals have any desire sexually abuse their children, the concern is still very present in many pro-family minds. Homosexual activists point out that cases of heterosexual pedophilia exceed those of homosexual pedophilia. This is true, granted, but the ratio of heterosexual males to homosexual males would necessitate that the group with the greater number of people would commit the greater number of infractions. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reveals that
Careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals. The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately thirty-six to one. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only eleven to one, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals. [emphasis added] (7)
Sadly, in the outcry from the homosexual activists about “rights” when it comes to parenting and raising children, the focus is always on the selfish desires of those homosexuals who desire to make themselves more normal by adopting children. The rights of those children in question are rarely, if ever, considered. As former British Home Secretary Jack Straw points out, “We should not see children as trophies.” (8)
Homosexual adoption will have a detrimental effect on children’s emotional and physical stability and well-being. It is impossible to deny that the homosexual population is one that embraces rampant promiscuity and that homosexuals are also frequently linked with HIV/AIDS, pedophilia, instability and suicide. Children should be protected from, not indoctrinated in that dangerous and perverted lifestyle.
Allowing civil unions would be a government endorsement of a lifestyle that is deadly
Although homosexual activist would like most Americans to believe that homosexuality is harmless, the facts indicate otherwise. Even some homosexual activists are honest enough to admit that the practice is sending people to an early grave. According to a leading homosexual newpaper:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases….Scientists believe that the increased numjber of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practixces by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness. (9)
This is evident in the studies that show that homosexuals are getting more and more bold when it comes to pushing the sexual envelope. Among homosexuals, who are at a greater risk for HIV than any other category of people (10), condom use has plummeted while the number of homosexuals engaging in anal sex has increased. (11)
In Homosexualities, the publication of The Institute for Sex Research, it was reported that only 10 percent of male homosexuals could be classified as “relatively monogamous” or “relatively less promiscuous.” The publication also reported that 60 percent of male homosexuals had over 250 sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000. Over 79 percent of those studied confessed that over half of their partners had been strangers. (12) So even though most homosexual relationships aren’t monogamous, the few that are not promiscuous are not necessarily less prone to sickness and disease. The important issue is not homosexual monogamy, but rather homosexual behavior. Regardless of how many partners a homosexual has, homosexual behavior is fundamentally deadly. One study indicates that:
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships. (13)
Allowing homosexual civil unions would contradict sodomy laws already on the books in several states. These laws seek to protect citizens from sickness and disease associated with abnormal sexual practices. Although these laws are rarely enforced, they serve as an important symbol that the government which is intended to promote the general welfare of its citizens will not endorse something that is overwhelmingly shown to be dangerous. In one study conducted by the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers found that if a man begins practicing homosexuality by age 20, he has a 50 percent chance of reaching the age of 65. (14)
Studies also show that alcohol abuse is prevalent among homosexuals. For lesbians, one study found that “lesbian and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to consume alcohol more frequently and in larger quantities, and they were 5 times as likely to be classified as heavy drinkers.” (15) Another study found that out of all men, “the most important risk group [for alcoholism] consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.” (16)
Homosexuals are also at a greater risk for suicide. According to the American Journal of Public Health, “comparisons of homosexually experienced men with those reporting only opposite-sex sexual partners suggest that the former may be more than 5 times as likely to have attempted suicide.” (17)
Protecting the “M”-word does nothing to protect the institution of the family
Perhaps no more important lesson can be learned from the efforts thus far, than the willingness of homosexuals to change their goals and methods when necessary, in order to obtain their ultimate objectives incrementally. As an example, homosexual activists have begun to accept the fact that public opinion and political momentum have clearly shifted against “gay” marriage. Therefore, while liberals continue to publicly demand “equality” for homosexuals who want the rewards of marriage, they are simultaneously working behind the scenes to gain the benefits of marriage without immediately demanding they be able to use the word.
Here’s a description of this shrewd change in tactics, as homosexual activist and columnist John Corvino articulated it recently (18):
- Properly crafted civil-unions legislation could grant ALL of the legal incidents of marriage (albeit under a different name). I am not talking about “watered-down” civil unions here; I’m talking about the full legal enchilada.
- The difference between such unions and marriage, since it is not a difference in legal incidents, appears to be a difference in level of social endorsement carried by the “m-word.”
- Our best strategy (in most states) for securing the tremendously important legal incidents is to fight for them under the name “civil unions.”
- Our best strategy for securing the social endorsement (i.e., marriage under the name “marriage”) is first to secure the legal incidents. Then people will look at our civil unions, realize that they are virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they objected to doing so before. That’s what happened in Scandinavia, and it’s happening elsewhere in Europe.
- Attempts to force the social endorsement too quickly (by demanding the name “marriage” above and beyond the legal incidents) may backfire, resulting in state constitutional bans not only on gay marriage but also on civil unions. The upshot would be to delay BOTH the legal incidents and the social endorsement.
Public policy should protect the institution of the family. The strength of society rises and falls based on the strength of its families. Therefore, granting special rights to certain people for deviant sexual behavior doesn’t make sense.
Perversion would be not only tolerated, but celebrated
Here is a foretaste of what you might see a lot more of in the future if homosexuals are allowed civil unions:
http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/HTML/Contents.htm – “One-stop-shopping” for “gay unions”
http://www.familieslikeours.org/modules/news/ – A “gay adoption” site
http://www.loveandpride.com/Home/Default.aspx – A “gay commitment ring” retailer
http://www.twogrooms.com/ and http://www.twobrides.com/ – “Gay wedding” planning
Homosexual civil unions are an affront to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. It is wrong for society to endorse or allow children to be subjected to perverse and destructive lifestyles for the sake of politics. Family Policy Network (FPN) opposes any efforts to legalize civil unions for homosexuals. FPN likewise opposes domestic partner benefits and reciprocal benefits for homosexuals, along with any other status that gives the rights, benefits, obligations, design, qualities, or significance of marriage.
Footnotes:.
1. http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/laws/2003/ab0205/fulltextchapteredbill.htm
2. www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunionlaw.html
3. Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, “Since When IS Marriage a Path to Liberation?” Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993), 398, 400.
4. Charlotte J. Patterson, “Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” American Psychological Association Public Interest Directorate (1995): 8.
5. P. A. Belcastro et al., “A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children’s Sexual and Social Functioning,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105.
6. Paul Van de Ven, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax, “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354, cited in Timothy J. Dailey, “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Insight 238, Family Research Council, http://www.frc.org/get/is01j3.cfm.
7. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 64-65.
8. News Release, “Blair’s Gay Adoption Plans Will Harm Children,” May 7, 2002, The Christian Institute, http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/may_7_2002.htm.
9. Bill Roundy, “STD Rates on the Rise,” New York Blade News, (December 15, 2000), 1.
10. “New CDC Studies Shed Light on Factors Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” CDC Press Release (July 9, 2002).
11. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (January 29, 1999), 45.
12.Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308.
13. G.J. Hart, “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992,” AIDS, July 1993, 863-869.
14. Robert S. Hogg, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
15. Allison L. Diamant, “Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care,” Archives of Family Medicine 9 (November-December 2000): 1048.
16. Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, “Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Diseases; A National Survey,” Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994): 261.
17. Susan D. Cochran, Vickie M. Mays, “Lifetime Prevalence of Suicide Symptoms and Affective Disorders among Men Reporting Same-sex Partners: Results from NHANES III”, American Journal of Public Health 90 (April 2000): 576.
18. As stated in Family Policy Network’s Policy Paper on Homosexual Marriage, found at http://familypolicy.net/papers-p-376. Quotation originally found at http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino13.html