August 2008
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-gender marriage, which had been approved by 61% of voters in 2000, in a broadly written judicial decision that would invalidate any law that differentiates on the basis of sexual orientation. In November 2008, Proposition 8 will enable California voters to reverse one important element of the court’s decision by restoring the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state constitution. Proposition 8 contains just 14 words, which are the same ones approved by California voters in 2000, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
While the issue may appear simplistic on the surface, there are underlying issues that every responsible citizen should be aware of in order to make a rational decision on the matter. For those who believe God ordained marriage between a man and a woman, and only He can change the definition of this union, the decision to support Proposition 8 is comparatively easy to make. But for many of differing faith, agnostic, or atheist traditions, a careful review of what the California Supreme Court determined is essential in order to understand the implications of redefining marriage in our state.
The primary focus of this article is to review the issues raised in a one-paragraph summary of the California Supreme Court’s majority opinion, which was written by Chief Justice Ronald George. Before addressing these issues, it may be helpful to know a little about the man who played a key role in overturning the 2000 law, and voiced the court’s decision.
68-year-old Chief Justice George is considered a moderate Republican who has liberal views on issues relating to civil rights. For example, in 1997, he supported the State Supreme Court in overturning a law that required teen-age girls to get the approval of a parent or judge before having an abortion, on the basis that it violated their right to privacy.
His recent ruling on same gender marriage was based heavily on the California Supreme Court's 1948 decision to allow interracial marriage, which was the first time a state court had recognized a constitutional right for interracial couples to marry. Justice George said that case taught him “certain basic rights could not be justified just because of history and tradition." Thus, even though he acknowledged that “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman . . . and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex,” he believed it was time to overturn that interpretation in 2008.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/MNOO114P1O.DTL&hw=Egelko&sn=001&sc=1000
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
The New Ruling
Page 7 of the court’s majority opinion written by Chief Justice George includes the following paragraph:
“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
This frequently quoted paragraph provides a good summary of the key issues addressed in the judicial ruling. Five issues identified in this paragraph also establish a reasonable framework for understanding what is at stake, and will each be addressed separately. These issues, which are written as authoritative statements in the judicial ruling, are:
1. our state now recognizes . . .
2. an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person . . . does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation
3. an individual’s capacity [to] responsibly . . . care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation
4. an individual’s sexual orientation [is] like a person’s race or gender
5. an individual’s sexual orientation . . . does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights
Our state now recognizes
. . .
This phrase infers that the majority of Californians or the California Legislature believe the subsequent statements are true. There is simply no reliable evidence to support this. Instead of citing authoritative empirical data, Chief Justice Ronald George told Union-Tribune staff writer Bill Ainsworth in a May 30, 2008 interview, that “people's attitudes toward gay individuals are evolving . . . I just intuitively feel that the country's moving in that direction.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080612-9999-bn12george.html
When the judiciary makes sweeping and authoritative statements on behalf of the State of California, it ought to do so by the voice of the people, not individual intuition. The California law approved by 61% of voters in 2000 defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman was found by its Supreme Court to be out of harmony with the state’s constitution. When such a condition occurs, the people have power to change it by the proscribed procedures of Constitutional amendment. This is why Proposition 8 is on the November ballot.
When four Supreme Court judges overturned the law passed by California voters, they supported their decision with well-meaning but flawed reasoning that has far-reaching implications. Even if Proposition 8 results in a constitutional amendment, Chief Justice George believes that other aspects of the ruling "will have, I think, vast consequences, not only in California but in other states," whose courts often follow California’s lead. In other words, Proposition 8 can restore only the traditional definition of marriage to California law, but the way homosexual individuals are viewed by the law may never be the same again.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/MNOO114P1O.DTL&hw=Egelko&sn=001&sc=1000
Dissenting to the overturned law, Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote that “a bare majority of this court [4-3], not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.” Justice Carol A. Corrigan, also dissenting, wrote, “We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root. If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
An individual’s capacity
to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person
does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation
This may well be true in a general sense. The capacity to love is one of life’s greatest gifts, and the notion that government can regulate who we love is absurd. However, as Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy put it, "If same-sex marriage benefits must be granted . . . why not polygamy? Why do couples caring for each other have to be in a sexual relationship? Why not offer these benefits to adults living in parent-child couples; single moms with their adult sons, for example, who arguably engage in even more caretaking than at lease some married folks? Why are best friends who are not sexually intimate excluded from marriage benefits? Why can't I marry my sister and raise kids with her - provided I obey incest laws?”
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
The point here is not that these situations deserve legal reconsideration, but that many forms of loving, long-term committed relationships exist outside of marriage. Most are highly beneficial to society, but some have been deemed unacceptable by the voice of the people. The manner in which the sexual aspect of love is expressed affects families, communities, states, and nations. Civil laws therefore exist to protect the unwilling, innocent, and young from rape, incest, child molestation, and other forms of harmful sexual behavior that could be perpetrated in the name of “love.” It is important that such laws continue to be established and enforced for the benefit of society as a whole.
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, who both voted against the ruling, highlighted a related concern. Baxter wrote that the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory . . . Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,3999077,full.story
The notion that what consenting adults do “behind closed doors” does not affect anyone else is simply false. For example, the Center for Disease Control reports that HIV/AIDS in gay men was first diagnosed 1981. In 2005, an estimated 500,000 gay men were diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S. They accounted for about 53% of all new cases, and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents. In 2006, an estimated 56,300 new HIV infections occurred. San Francisco hospitals found the average cost to treat each case to be $27,571, which equates to more than $13.7 billion in expenses that must be paid by someone. More people than just those diagnosed are clearly helping to pay the bill. Many other examples could be cited, but are unnecessary to make the point that certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults do have far-reaching social implications beyond simply expressing love and commitment for each other.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5731a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/69
Additionally, California law already allows homosexuals to officially establish loving and long-term committed relationships with each other as a registered domestic partnership. Registering a domestic partnership does not make the partners married or spouses under California law, but they nevertheless acquire a broad range of statutory rights and privileges, and this is a legally established civil union. As of January 1, 2005, the rights and obligations of registered domestic partners under California law are virtually identical to the rights and obligations of spouses. Therefore, the underlying issue is not whether same-sex couples can establish loving and long-term committed relationships, but rather whether homosexuality should become more widely accepted socially. Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that the latter is true, and they have acted decisively. Now it is time for the people of California to make their will known on the subject by passing the proposed constitutional amendment.
An individual’s capacity to responsibly care for and
raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation
On what basis does the court make such a sweeping and definitive judgment? Who will stand for California children to respond to this declaration? An article prepared by the American College of Pediatricians, whose mission is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being," prepared a report in January 2004 entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? This article provides a moderate and well-researched voice in behalf of our children.
“Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
“Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.
“Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.
“Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
“The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
Includes detailed references.
Professor Bradley P. Hayton highlighted findings that concern many regarding the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children. He wrote, “Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.”
Hayton, Bradley P., "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institutes, 1993), p.9
One additional point is important to make here. There are many who contend against the viewpoints expressed in the ACP and Hayton reports, believing that the social or scientific evidence against same-sex marriage is insufficient or flawed. However, there is a much larger body of data available on the subject of homosexuality than there is on same-sex parenting. The ACP report in particular contains statements that are supported by a significant volume of data on homosexual behavior.
William Meezan and Johathan Rouch, who are openly gay authors that advocate same-sex marriage, wrote a paper that was published in the fall of 2005 entitled Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children. For that article, they reviewed most of the then-existing literature on same-sex parenting and its effects on children, consisting of more than fifty studies, many literature reviews, and accounts of a number of dissertations and conference papers dating back to the 1970s. The following excerpts summarize their observations and conclusions about same-sex parenting.
“Although Americans are deeply divided over same-sex marriage, on one point most would agree: the issue has moved from the obscure fringes to the roiling center of the family-policy debate in a startlingly brief time.
“For many of its advocates, same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. For many of its opponents, it is just as simply a moral issue. In reality, it is both, but it is also a family-policy issue—one of the most important, yet least studied, family-policy issues on the American scene today. The most controversial of its family-policy aspects is the question: how might same-sex marriage affect the well-being of American children?
“No one knows just how many American children are being raised by same-sex couples today. The 2000 census counted about 594,000 households headed by same-sex couples, and it found children living in 27 percent of such households. The census did not, however, count the number of children in each home. So all we can say is that, conservatively, at least 166,000 children are being raised by gay and lesbian couples.
“Although even many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that gay and lesbian people should be allowed to foster and adopt children under certain circumstances, they worry that legalizing same-sex marriage would send an irrevocable cultural signal that same-sex parenting and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may not be equally good for children. In any case, the advent of same-sex marriage would probably make same-sex parenting easier legally and more widely accepted socially.
“What the evidence [from the existing body of research on the subject of same-sex parenting] does not provide, because of the methodological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about whether those studied are typical or atypical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.
“Virtually no empirical evidence exists on how same-sex parents’ marriage might affect their children.
“The only negative suggestion to have been uncovered about the emotional development of children of same-sex parents is a fear on the part of the children—which seems to dissipate during adolescence when sexual orientation is first expressed—that they might be homosexual.
“In the heterosexual world, a substantial body of research shows that, other things held equal, marriages are more durable and stable than cohabitation; and stability is, most scholars agree, of vital importance to children. To what extent this would be true of same-sex couples is not as yet known in any rigorous way.
“The social dynamics of same-sex marriage may be rather complicated. In communities that embrace the notion of same-sex marriage, marriage might bring added support and investment from neighbors, teachers, employers, peers, and others on whom children and parents rely. On the other hand, social acceptance of same-sex marriages as “real” marriages—marriages viewed as authentic by family, friends, and such institutions as churches and neighborhood groups—cannot be forced. If imposed legally over the resistance of a community, same-sex marriage might bring little additional social investment; indeed, it might become a new source of backlash against same-sex couples and their children.
“Whether same-sex marriage would prove socially beneficial, socially harmful, or
trivial is an empirical question that cannot be settled by any amount of armchair theorizing. There are plausible arguments on all sides of the issue, and as yet there is no evidence sufficient to settle them . . . The costs and benefits of same-sex marriage cannot be weighed if it cannot be tried—and, preferably, compared with other alternatives (such as civil unions).
“As it happens, the United States is well situated, politically and legally, to try same-sex marriage on a limited scale—without, so to speak, betting the whole country. As of this writing, one state (Massachusetts) is marrying same-sex couples, two others (Vermont and Connecticut) offer civil unions, and several more (notably California) offer partner benefit programs of one sort or another. The nation is running exactly the sort of limited, localized experiment that can repay intensive study. The clustering in four neighboring states of all three kinds of arrangement—same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut, and neither in New Hampshire—offers a near ideal natural laboratory.”
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/06_FOC_15-2_fall05_Meezan-Rauch.pdf
Includes detailed references.
As these authors reaffirm, much is not empirically known about the effects of same-sex marriage on children. They also acknowledge that a “near ideal natural laboratory” for generating useful and reliable data already exists in New England. Why should California be so hasty to pursue such a major re-definition of traditional marriage when so many concerns about its potential effects on children exist that can be proven elsewhere?
Notwithstanding the foregoing, recent court rulings in California now allow same gender couples to adopt, raise, and provide foster care for children in this state. The passage of Proposition 8 will not change this.
In an interview published in Spiegel International, Justice George revealed the true nature of the ruling when he said, “If this amendment to the constitution passes [Proposition 8], it would prevent gay people from being married, but it would not remove this protection that we put in our analysis. We're saying that if you look at a classification of gay people, you must treat it just as if you are classifying on the basis of the color of their skin or their religion. And that is probably the most important thing in the whole ruling, even though the population's attention understandably has mostly been on the ‘M word’ of marriage.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/MNOO114P1O.DTL&hw=Egelko&sn=001&sc=1000
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,561460,00.html
There are really two issues at stake here. The first is whether sexual orientation deserves to be treated in the same legal classification as race and gender. The second relates to protection against unfair discrimination.
Justice George’s written opinion declares that an individual’s sexual orientation is like a person’s race or gender. Many contend that such is not the case. One simple reason is that race and gender are birth characteristics over which children have no choice. Sexual orientation, however, is not so easily defined. There are many who believe that same gender attraction and homosexual behaviors are natural born traits over which they have no control. In April 2008, the American College of Pediatricians published an article reviewing key issues of this debate, and the most recent scientific findings.
“Researchers agree that sexual orientation develops from a combination of environmental and biological influences. The debate is over whether or not change of sexual orientation is enduring or even possible. Homosexuality affirming researchers believe that inborn biological factors trump any environmental contribution. Therefore, they consider sexual orientation to be innate and immutable. These researchers and therapists view same sex attraction (SSA) as a normal variant of human sexual development. Any effort to alter or eliminate SSA is equated with trying to change a person’s ethnicity. Homosexuality affirming therapists therefore oppose re-orientation therapy in all cases, arguing that those who are ambivalent about their same-sex attractions actually suffer from “internalized homophobia” and require counseling that will allow them to accept their innate homosexuality.
“Other researchers, however, maintain that science tells a very different story – one of minimal biological influence, and a high degree of sexual fluidity. They argue that an objective review of the data strongly suggests that unwanted SSA is both preventable and changeable for many who desire those outcomes. While some of these therapists consider all SSA to be a psychosexual developmental disorder, others reject this notion. The construct that unites them is their insistence on a patient’s right to informed consent and self determination.
“During the last 40 years the majority of SSA studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked. This includes the widely publicized brain research of Dr. Simon LeVay, and the gay gene research of Dr. Dean Hamer.
“There is, however, a somewhat greater incidence of SSA among identical versus fraternal twins, which suggests the presence of inherited predisposing traits at least for some. Data from multiple identical twin studies, however, proves that this inherited influence is minimal.
“Every trait is influenced by genes, but only some are determined by them. ‘Genetically determined’ is destiny, ‘genetically influenced’ is not. Identical twins have exactly the same DNA and share genetically determined traits 100% of the time. Eye color is a genetically determined trait, so identical twins always have the same eye color. SSA, however, is shared only 10-30% of the time proving instead that there is no gay gene and that at least 70% of the variation in sexual orientation is not inherited.
“Francis Collins, MD, director of the Human Genome Project, has concluded that ‘there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive.’ Regarding SSA, he states ‘sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA. Whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.’ Environment and free will decisions interact with these predispositions and play an important role in the development of SSA.
“A recent meta-analysis of 21 homosexual parenting studies revealed the significant influence of parents’ sexual orientation on that of their children. Each individual study concluded that there are no differences between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents. Due to serious methodological flaws, however, the reliability of the studies was challenged. Homosexuality affirming researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz therefore performed a meta-analysis designed to minimize the effect of those flaws. To their surprise, significant differences were now revealed: Children raised by homosexual parents were more likely to initiate sexual activity at earlier ages, be more promiscuous and declare themselves homosexual than children raised by heterosexual parents.
“Stacey and Biblarz also found that sons of lesbians were less aggressive, and daughters more aggressive than those in heterosexual homes. Children with same-sex parents were less likely to conform to traditional gender roles. The researchers hailed this as a positive outcome. This is not necessarily the case, however, since the feminization of boys and masculinization of girls is also found in gender identity disorder of childhood (GID).
“Children with GID may explicitly state a desire to be the opposite sex, cross-dress, insist on toileting as the opposite sex and engage almost exclusively in non-stereotypic play even prior to the age of 4. These children are referred to as gender disordered or gender discordant. The emotional suffering of these children is indisputable and many homosexuality affirmative researchers agree that GID is treatable. Up to 75% of untreated gender discordant boys and one to two thirds of untreated discordant girls will develop SSA. On the other hand, SSA may be prevented when GID is treated successfully.
“Many teens who develop SSA, however, never met the criteria for GID – should they claim a homosexual identity? No. Sexual attractions are especially fluid during adolescence. A 1992 survey, for example, reported that 25% of 7th graders were uncertain of their sexual orientation. In 2002 Bearman and Breukner found that 9.7% of teens had experienced a romantic attraction to someone of the same-sex. Yet, the percentage of adults who identify as homosexual is consistently 3% or less. Having same-sex attractions, fantasies and/or experiences as an adolescent does not mean that a teen is or will be homosexual.
“Those who do label themselves ‘gay’ or bisexual tend to become sexually active at younger ages and are more sexually promiscuous than their peers. The serious physical and emotional illnesses associated with homosexual behavior are well documented. Increased rates of drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety, depression, suicide, eating disorders and intimate partner violence are more prevalent among homosexual men and women than among their heterosexual counterparts.
“For these reasons, adolescents should be discouraged from claiming a ‘gay’ identity or labeling others as ‘gay’ prematurely. Instead, all teens should be encouraged to practice sexual abstinence.
“What does science reveal about the possibility of change after a teen or adult adopts a homosexual identity? A review of the literature regarding reorientation indicates that the possibility for change exists at all ages. Seeking treatment prior to initiating homosexual activity, age under 35, the presence of past or coexisting heterosexual attractions, a high motivation to change, and working with a therapist who believes that change is possible, are all associated with a greater likelihood of success.
“Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a former President of the American Psychological Association, firmly believes that those with SSA can claim a gay identity and lead happy, healthy lives. He is just as vehement, however, in defending the right to reorientation therapy if one is distressed by their same-sex attractions. Over a twenty-year period at Kaiser-Permanente in San Francisco, California, Dr. Cummings’ practice treated and maintained extensive notes on 18,000 patients who were dissatisfied with their SSA. Two thirds of the patients were helped by therapy. Twenty percent of this group successfully reoriented. The remaining 80% went on to decrease high-risk homosexual behaviors and live ‘sexually responsible and happy gay lives.’
“Dr. Warren Throckmorton has similarly stated that those who adopt a ‘gay identity’ can lead happy, healthy lives. Yet, he too, vigorously defends the right of patients to seek reorientation therapy if they desire to pursue such change after giving appropriate informed consent. In 1998, Dr. Throckmorton conducted an extensive review of reorientation reports published in the Journal of Mental Health. He documented that multiple forms of standard, ethical therapeutic interventions had successfully effected change of sexual orientation.
“In 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer was instrumental in declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder and today remains a ‘gay rights’ supporter. For decades he firmly believed that change of orientation was impossible. In 2003, after studying a group of 200 ‘ex-gay’ men and women, he reversed his stance. All participants gave evidence of achieving degrees of long-term change in their sexual orientation up to and including complete heterosexuality without suffering any negative consequences from therapy. Similar findings were reported in 2007 by Drs. Jones and Yarhouse. These researchers studied a cohort of ‘ex-gays’ who successfully participated in religiously mediated therapy to change their sexual orientation.
“The American Psychiatric Association’s on-line website also supports the notion of sexual fluidity:
‘Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals may become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.’
“In summary, SSA is determined by a complex interaction between familial and peer influences, unique events, social and biological factors. An attachment deficit, cross-gender behavior, rejection by same-sex peers, sexual abuse, involvement in pornography and sexual experimentation are associated with SSA for many, but do not unilaterally or universally cause it. In other words, not every person who has these experiences will develop SSA, and not every person with SSA will have a history of these experiences. This is likely where biological influences and unrecognized environmental or societal factors play a role. What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.
“Parents have the right to make
informed health care decisions for their children based on accurate and
unbiased information, as do psychosocially mature adolescents themselves. While sexual attractions may not be
consciously chosen, one can choose what to do with these attractions once
recognized. No one is ‘born gay.’ Biological and environmental influences may
be fostered or foiled. Therefore, SSA is indeed preventable and changeable to
varying degrees for many who desire these outcomes.
“Finally, it is important to stress that while change is a choice - not everyone who attempts change succeeds. Regardless of what one believes about homosexual behavior, it is essential to stand in solidarity against all forms of unjust discrimination and violence.”
http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=1007631167&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167<br>
Includes detailed references.
As the ACP article concludes, “no one is born gay.” The homosexual lifestyle choice may have both biological and environmental influences, but ultimately the decision to cultivate or overcome those influences lies with each individual. This condition is vastly different than being born a certain race or gender. The California Supreme Court has clearly overreached its authority when proclaiming that they are equal. However, as Justice George observed, “If this amendment to the constitution passes, it would prevent gay people from being married, but it would not remove this protection that we put in our analysis.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,561460,00.html
On the issue of discrimination, homosexuals already receive comprehensive legal protection from discrimination by most California laws. Equity California is a leading organization founded in 1998 to pursue equal rights for homosexual people in California. The organization’s website states that,
“In the past 10 years, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. In the past decade, EQCA has successfully passed more than 45 pieces of civil rights legislation for the LGBT community – more than any other statewide LGBT organization in the nation. Most sections of California law prohibit discrimination based on a long list of protected classes, including sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. LGBT Californians are protected from discrimination in securing employment and housing, accessing government services and participating in state-funded activities. LGBT people are also protected under the state’s hate crime law.”
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025493
While it is essential to stand in solidarity against all forms of unjust discrimination and violence (and current California law already provides tremendous protection against such behavior), it is not essential to equate homosexuality with race and gender, as the California Supreme Court voted it should be. This is another reason why the voice of the people must be heard on this subject.
An individual’s sexual orientation does not
constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights
The only legal right in question at present is the right to marry someone of the same gender. Virtually all other state rights that married people enjoy are currently available to same gender couples in California. This point was even made in Chief Justice George’s opinion. He wrote, “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.”
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
The California Family Code, in Section 297.5, paragraphs a, b, and c (which are identical, except for the references in parentheses) clarifies the legal rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners are entitled to in California. “Registered (and former registered, and surviving 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 (and former spouses, and a widow or widower).
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
If all these rights and responsibilities are currently available in California to same gender couples, what more are they looking for? It is very simple - widespread social acceptance and official recognition of the homosexual lifestyle. Are traditional marriage and homosexual marriage equal? No, they are not. Has California been exceedingly accommodating in responding to the demands for equal protections and responsibilities for its 110,000 homosexual citizens, which represent about 3% of the state’s 36.5 million residents? Yes it has. But a line must be drawn for the benefit of the vast majority of California’s residents.
Proposition 8 represents a fair and reasonable demarcation that protects the societal values of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, without prohibiting the nearly identical rights and responsibilities of same gender couples bound in legally sanctioned domestic partnerships in California.
In September 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into national law The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate, and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives. This law prevents the Federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, and protects states from being required to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. This law is still in effect today. California same-gender couples do not receive any benefits reserved for married couples by the federal government. This will not change with the passage of Proposition 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
A Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the United States Constitution was proposed in 2006, which intended to define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The proposed amendment, while receiving majority votes in both houses of Congress, did not receive enough votes for passage. Bob Barr, author of the 1996 DOMA, voiced the concern of many legislators regarding the FMA. He said it “was entirely unnecessary, especially given the existence of the Defense of Marriage Act . . . [and] would have gone too far, and violated the very principles of state sovereignty on which DOMA was based.” In other words, Congress did the right thing by leaving the issue in the hands of the states.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040716_barr.html
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 27 of the states have passed legislation that defines marriage between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. "Typically, constitutional amendments have passed with an overwhelming majority," the NCSL reported. 41 states currently have statutes defining marriage between one man and one woman. 3 states have a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2008, including California, Florida, and Arizona. 5 states do not have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm
The May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling, while providing broad protection for the civil rights of homosexuals, does nothing to protect the rights of those most susceptible to harm from making acceptance of this lifestyle a mainstream mandate – our children. They are not born into the world as homosexuals, yet they (and the rest of us as well) are now obliged to learn about and make decisions regarding a lifestyle that just a few short decades ago was kept “in the closet.” While the process of “coming out” has resulted in laudable protection against unfair discrimination for the homosexual community, the whiplash effect is that the institution of heterosexual marriage is taking a painful beating akin to reverse discrimination.
Passage of Proposition 8 will affirm the value the citizens of our nation and state have always placed on marriage between a man and a woman. It will bring the California Constitution into conformity with the will of the majority of people in our great state, and prevent the definition of marriage from being overturned by judicial fiat in the future. It will provide an increased measure of protection to our children, who represent our best hope for a bright future. It will allow for the continuation of broad civil rights and protections for homosexuals in California, including virtually all the rights enjoyed by married spouses. These rights and protections are already greater in number and scope than those provided by any other state in the nation. Homosexuals will continue to be able to adopt and raise children, to enjoin in legally sanctioned and protected relationships in virtually every way except in the name of marriage, and earn the respect and dignity of others the same way everyone must – through the way we treat each other and discharge our social and familial responsibilities.
If supporters of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage want to convince Californians of the propriety of its cause, the battle must be won in the realm of public opinion, in which the voice of reason must rise above vicious attacks from either side of the argument.
Californians can be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and even loving towards those of differing lifestyles, without accepting those lifestyles as being equal to the institution of marriage. This is the line that needs to be clearly established with Proposition 8.
# # #
Steve Mortensen is a business writer who has been married for nearly 20 years and has 4 children.
Suggested Resources
(How) Will Gay Marriage
Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution
By Maggie Gallagher
University of St. Thomas Law
Journal
Fall 2004
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
“At its core the case
against same-sex marriage has little to do with any mental associations about
gay folk, positive or negative. I hope
. . . to spark a serious debate about the public purposes of marriage and of
how the law can and should sustain marriage as a social institution, and
therefore what the consequences of legally redefining marriage as a unisex
relationship are likely to be.”
No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About
Same-Sex Parenting
By Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and
Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D.
Marriage Law Project,
Washington D.C.
January 2001
http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf
“It is routinely asserted in
courts, journals and the media that it makes ‘no difference’ whether a child
has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific
studies that are claimed to have ‘demonstrated’ this. An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no
basis for this assertion. The studies
on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.”