The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage”

1 The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage . by peter sprigg Some advocates of Same-Sex wage-earners, each of whom can obtain their own marriage scoff at the idea insurance. Never mind that dependents were, when that it could harm anyone. the tax code was developed, assumed to be children Here are ten ways in which and stay-at-home mothers. And never mind that society could be harmed by homosexuals have higher rates of physical disease, legalizing Same-Sex mar- mental illness, and substance abuse,2 leading to more riage. Most of these effects medical claims and higher insurance premiums. No, B C 11 A. would become evident only all of these logical considerations must give way in the in the long run, but several face of the demand for taxpayer subsidies of homo- 02.

2 Would occur immediately. sexual relationships. But these costs would be imposed not only upon Immediate Effects governments, but upon businesses and private orga- 1. nizations as well. Some organizations already offer Taxpayers, consumers, and domestic partner benefits to Same-Sex couples as a businesses would be forced to matter of choice. Social conservatives have discour- subsidize homosexual relationships. aged such policies, but we have not attempted to for- bid them by law. One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil marriage revolves around all the Imagine, though, what the impact on employee ben- government benefits that homosexuals claim they efit programs would be if homosexual marriage is are denied.

3 Many of these benefits involve one legalized nationwide. Right now, marriage still pro- thing taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager vides a clear, bright line, both legally and socially, to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals to distinguish those who receive dependent benefits of homosexual activists is to take part in the biggest and those who don't. But if homosexual couples are government entitlement program of all Social Se- granted the full legal status of civil marriage , then curity. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible employers who do not want to grant benefits to ho- for Social Security survivors benefits when one part- mosexual partners whether out of principle, or sim- ner dies.

4 Ply because of a prudent economic judgment would undoubtedly be coerced by court orders to do so. The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from demanding the 2. Homosexual activists are also demanding that chil- Schools would teach that dren raised by a homosexual couple be eligible for homosexual relationships are benefits when one of the partners dies even if the identical to heterosexual ones. deceased partner was not the child's biological or adoptive parent. The advocates of Same-Sex marriage argue that it will have little impact on anyone other than the cou- As another example, homosexuals who are employed ples who marry.

5 However, even the brief experience by the government want to be able to name their ho- in Massachusetts, where Same-Sex marriage was mosexual partners as dependents in order to get the imposed by the state's Supreme Judicial Court and taxpayers to pay for health insurance for them. Nev- began on May 17, 2004, has demonstrated that the er mind that most homosexual couples include two impact of such a social revolution will extend much 1. further including into the public schools. In Sep- Religious liberty means much more than liturgical tember 2004, National Public Radio reported, Al- rituals. It applies not only to formal houses of wor- ready, some gay and lesbian advocates are working on ship, but to para-church ministries, religious educa- a new gay-friendly curriculum for kindergarten and tional and social service organizations, and individual up.

6 They also featured an interview with Deb Al- believers trying to live their lives in accordance with len, a lesbian who teaches eighth-grade sex education their faith not only at church, but at home, in their in Brookline, Mass. Allen now feels emboldened neighborhoods, and in the workplace. These, more in teaching a gay-friendly curriculum, declaring, than your pastor or parish priest, are the entities If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, Give whose religious liberty is most threatened by same- me a break. It's legal now.' Her lessons include de- sex marriage.. scriptions of homosexual sex given thoroughly and explicitly with a chart. Allen reports she will ask her Some of these threats to religious liberty can arise students, Can a woman and a woman have vaginal from nondiscrimination laws based on sexual orien- intercourse, and they will all say no.

7 And I'll say, tation, even without Same-Sex marriage. But when Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. homosexual marriage becomes legal, then laws They could use' and we talk and we discuss that. which once applied to homosexuals only as individu- So the answer there is yes. 3 als then apply to homosexual couples as well. So, for example, when Catholic Charities in Boston insisted The parents of a kindergarten student in Lexington, that they would stay true to principle and refuse to Massachusetts were upset when their son's school place children for adoption with Same-Sex couples, sent home a book featuring Same-Sex couples with the they were told by the state that they could no longer child in a Diversity Bag.

8 David Parker, the child's do adoptions at father, met with his son's principal to insist that the school notify him and allow his child to opt out of In other cases, a variety of benefits or opportunities discussions of homosexuality in the classroom. State that the state makes available to religious nonprofits law specifically guarantees parents the right to opt could be withheld based on the organization's refusal their child out of any curriculum involving human to treat Same-Sex couples and marriages the same sexuality issues. 4 Nevertheless, the principal refused, as opposite-sex marriages. Organizations might be and because Parker was unwilling to leave without denied government grants or aid otherwise available such assurances, he was arrested for trespassing and to faith-based groups; they might be denied access to spent a night in jail stripped of my shoes, my belt, public facilities for events.

9 And they might even have my wedding ring, and my parental rights, as he later their tax-exempt status That is what hap- put Lexington school superintendent Paul Ash pened to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Associa- evaded the state law by insisting that books about ho- tion in New Jersey when they refused to rent facilities mosexual couples dealt with family experiences and for a lesbian civil union diversity, not human sexuality. 6 Six months later, Religious educational institutions are particularly at the criminal charges against Parker were dropped risk, because in some cases they may allow students but Ash continued to bar Parker from all school who are not believers to attend and even have staff property,7 meaning that he is banned from voting, who are not adherents of their religion, but still de- teacher-parent conferences, and school committee sire to maintain certain religiously-informed norms meetings.

10 8 and standards of behavior. Yet a Lutheran school in California has been sued for expelling two girls who were in a lesbian Yeshiva University, a Jewish school in New York City, was forced to al- 3. low Same-Sex domestic partners in married-student Freedom of conscience and religious Religious clubs on secular campuses may liberty would be threatened. be denied recognition if they oppose homosexual conduct this happened to the Christian Legal Soci- Another important and immediate result of Same-Sex ety at the University of California's Hastings School marriage would be serious damage to religious lib- of erty. 2. Professionals would face lawsuits or even a denial of 20% of the total identified by the By con- licensing if they refuse to treat homosexual relation- trast, 91% of opposite-sex couples who lived together ships the same as heterosexual ones.