10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful




Commentary7 min read 437,500 Reasons to Talk about Foster Care COMMENTARY2. International Asia Europe Global Politics Middle East Government Spending

Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Ball believes that the struggle “societal acceptance” of - relationships entails a “frontal attack” on the “deeply held views of many Americans regarding the (im)morality of homouality.”[28] It is “impossible,” Professor Ball writes “to grapple with the complexities of the issue by simply asking equality and state-neutrality and protection against discrimination.”[29] Recently a group of professors favoring - published an entire book on the topic of morality religion and - [30] The authors who include Professors Feldblum and Ball believe that “current advocates gay rights are not really engaging their opponents unless they are engaged with the moral nature of their opponents’ views and ”[31] This book self-consciously engages “the moral questions” that often arise in connection with issues like - and argues that “the moral case” favors outcomes like the legalization of - [32] Three understandings should form the basis of any discussion about the place of religion and morality in the same-sex marriage debate First though some people who defend marriage are personally religious or have religious motivations support for marriage as the union of husband and wife does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith Second many people including some professional gay-rights activists enthusiastically mix religion with law and politics in support of same-sex marriage Third the question of how marriage should be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be confronted directly Many Arguments for Marriage as the Union of Husband and Wife Are Not Religious in Nature Energy & Environment Coal Oil Natural Gas Energy Economics Nuclear Energy Renewable Energy Legal and Judicial

[3]Rev John W Wimberly Jr President American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital Testimony bee the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia on Bill 18–482 the “Religious Freedom and Civil Equality Amendment Act of 2009” () at 3 [4]David Blankenhorn The Future of 178 (2007) [5]Loving v Virginia 388 U.S 1 12 (1967) (citing Skinner v Oklahoma 316 U.S 535 541 (1942)) See also Skinner 316 U.S at 541 (explaining that “[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of. [15] See Calinia Faith Equality “Interfaith Amicus Brief of 2009,” #amicus09 [16] See supra Note 13 [17]Lambda Legal Faith Leaders Speak Out: Statements of Support from Individuals and National Leaders /take-action/tool-kits/people-of-faith-speak-out/faith-leaders-speak- . Many religious institutions and leaders favoring - also actively engage in judicial processes In a state court lawsuit claiming a right to - under the Calinia constitution representatives from a wide range of religious and faith organizations supported an “interfaith ‘friend of the court’ brief” that was signed by hundreds of “religious associations churches synagogues sanghas ministers and rabbis across Calinia and the nation.”[14] In a legal challenge against Proposition 8 “nearly one thousand faith communities and faith leaders with constituents in Calinia” supported a brief favoring - [15] More pragmatically everyone has a worldview and everyone inevitably brings that worldview to bear on issues of public policy including Theree as Barack Obama stated when he was still a U.S Senator “[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door bee entering into the public square… [T]o say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity Our law is by definition a codification of morality ”[21] Advocates on both sides of the debate should respect the reasoned participation in that debate of people of all faiths and no faith at all Defining in Law Involves Moral Considerations Many focus on it as a natural pre-political social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and raising of children “Across history and cultures,” reports scholar David Blankenhorn “’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father Changing to accommodate - couples,” argues Blankenhorn “would nullify this principle in culture and. It is precisely the connection between on the one hand and the begetting and raising of children on the other hand that makes as the Supreme Court wrote in Loving v Virginia “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”[5] This connection is also why race is not relevant to but gender is With procreation the most important public purpose of remains uniting men and women in a “mal partnership” that will last through “the prolonged period of dependency of a human child.”[6] The intergenerational and long-term benefits of to society are profound and irreplaceable The public has a strong interest in using law and policy to recognize affirm support solidify encourage strengthen and defend as the cornerstone of the family and the building block of society [25]William N Eskridge Jr Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights 237 (2002) [26]Chai R Feldblum A Progressive Moral Case - 7 Temp Pol & Civ Rts L Rev 485 493 (1998) (quoting Chai R Feldblum Keep the in - 4 Harv Gay & Lesbian Rev 23 25 (1997)) See also id at 490 (stating “I want to propose an alternative vision of the moral good of what I term here a ‘progressive moral case’ - ”) [27]The website The Moral Values Project is at . /moralvaluesproject/. Far from disclaiming religious support - professional gay-rights activists welcome and encourage it The National Religious Leadership Roundtable which supported the multi-faith event on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall described above is convened by the National Gay and Lesbian Task ce.[16] On its website Lambda Legal posts statements from “faith supporters” of - [17] Harry Knox Director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion and Faith Program and a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships has traveled to Calinia to help “mobilize clergy and people of faith equality.”[18] Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum who recently was appointed by President Obama to serve as a Commissioner on the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sees in the movement - an opportunity “to make the case ” the “normative moral equivalence” of “gay and heteroual ”—an argument Professor Feldblum observes “that is hardly ever heard in political circles.”[26] Professor Feldblum has even created what she calls “The Moral Values Project” to promote this argument.[27] [11] See Senate Rules Committee Bill Analysis of Bill No AB 43 at 5–10 () (listing individuals and groups supporting - legislation) available at .gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050 ; Senate Judiciary Committee Bill Analysis of Bill No AB 43 at 19 (stating that “[m]any religious-affiliated groups are in support of [the - legislation]”) available at .gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050 ; id at 20–23 (listing individuals and groups supporting - legislation). These law professors are not the only advocates prepared to advance moral - When political activists assert that not allowing two people of the to marry is “wrong,” allude to the “long arc of justice,” or invoke concepts of “human rights,” they too make of a moral nature At some level all legal and policy issues involve a moral dimension and activists and lawmakers who take liberal and progressive political positions often have no problem using morally charged language to support those political positions on issues as diverse as capital punishment environmentalism and health care Problems of fundamental fairness arise however when parties who use moral argumentation to support their own position suggest that opposing parties should not do. Some proponents of - have suggested that religion is the primary obstacle to redefining to include homoual unions “[R]eligion is the chief obstacle gay and lesbian political progress,” testifies one expert.[1] Says one activist “There’s no road to success that doesn’t go through religion-based homophobia.”[2] According to the American Civil Liberties Union “The primary opposition to - appears to be theologically based—the claim that God doesn’t like it.”[3] It might be true of course that many people who defend are personally religious or act in part from a religious motivation to promote the common good But support does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith. Select a Section 1/0 Toggle open close Abstract : Some - activists might wish to exclude certain moral and religious viewpoints from the - debate Evidence shows however that religion and moral argumentation are often harnessed in support of - People of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to participate in the debate and bring moral viewpoints to bear on the issues Evidence shows however that religion is often harnessed in support of - In Calinia example a wide range of religious institutions supported - legislation that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.[11] Thank you signing up Follow us [28]Ball supra note 24 at 1927 [29] Id at 1942 [30] See Gordon A Babst et al Moral Argument Religion and - (2009) [31] Id at x [32] Id. As a general principle the robust participation of religious people and institutions in public life is good this nation President George Washington described religion and morality as the “great Pillars of human happiness,” the “firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens,” and “indispensable supports” of “all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.”[19] President Washington also had the insight to warn that Americans should indulge only with caution the supposition that “morality can be maintained without religion Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,” he said “reason and experience both bid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”[20] [18]Human Rights Campaign Religion and Faith News at .net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=2461.0 [19]George Washington Farewell Address (S) in Arlin M Adams and Charles J Emmerich A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty app 1 at 114 (1990) [20] Id Similarly there was significant religiously based political opposition to Proposition 8 the amendment Calinia voters passed in 2008 Religious institutions and leaders that support - in Calinia contributed money resources and support to No on Prop 8 efts and urged citizens to oppose Proposition 8.[12] In one event over a hundred “multi-faith leaders,” including “rabbis ministers pastors priests and priestesses,” stood on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall and “proclaim[ed] their opposition to Calinia’s Proposition 8.”[13] Domestic Policy Agriculture Education Government Regulation Housing Political Thought Developments in the - debate have focused new attention on the place of religion and morality in shaping the legal definition of example after voters passed Proposition 8 the Calinia amendment the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was subjected to heavy criticism and based on its support the measure Now in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 one issue is whether evidence of religious support Proposition 8 somehow renders the measure suspect

To say these are not religious in nature is not to disparage the important place of faith and morality in public life or the higher law foundation of moral truth This nation was founded on truths said to be “self-evident according to ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,’”[7] and concepts like inalienable rights have meaning only in reference to a higher law that binds even the state The point is merely that using the light of reason and evidence from the world around them people of good will can support the traditional understanding of without accepting the religious teachings of any particular faith Religion Harnessed to Support - If religion is viewed as the primary obstacle to making - a reality in law it should be no surprise if some activists wish to exclude certain religious viewpoints from the - debate One activist expressed this view quite plainly in explaining why he sponsored an advertisement exploiting anti-Mormon bigotry.[8] “I’m not intending it to harm the religion,” this activist said.[9] “I think they do wonderful things My single goal is to get them out of the - business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[10] These examples do not exhaust the possible illustrations of how religion has been mixed with law and politics to oppose measures like Proposition 8 and support the cause of - more generally Many additional instances can be identified in Calinia and elsewhere Infrastructure & Technology Cybersecurity Space Policy Technology Transportation National Security Poverty & Welfare Hunger and Food Programs Poverty and Inequality Welfare Economy Whether to recognize - in law involves inescapable moral considerations Parties on both sides of the issue should be free to bring their moral viewpoints to bear on the issues involved Conclusion Religion and morality occupy a vital place in the public life of this country and the question of is one of the most important and contested public issues of the time It is neither surprising nor alarming if parties on both sides of the debate seek to use moral argumentation and enlist the support of religious figures and institutions Attempts to suppress the open expression of a diversity of viewpoints on the issue of should be strongly resisted —Thomas M Messner is a Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation [1]Transcript of Proceedings at 1565 Perry v Schwarzenegger No 09-2292 (N.D Cal ) available at /userdocs [2]John Wildermuth Gay-Rights Activists Protest Prop 8 at Capitol S.F Chron (quoting Rev Lindi Ramsden of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry) available at .com/cgi-bin ?f=/c/a/2008/11/22 . [21]Senator Barack Obama “Call to Renewal Keynote Address,” Call to Renewal Conference on Building a Covenant a New America J available at /2006/06/28 [22] Id [23]Maynard v Hill 125 U.S 190 205 (1888) [24]Carlos A Ball Moral Foundations a Discourse on - : Looking Beyond Political Liberalism 85 Geo L.J. [6]Barbara Dafoe Whitehead The War Between the es The American Enterprise May/June 1996 at 26 [7]Matthew Spalding Revolutionary Truths that Work /Research/Commentary/2009/11/Revolutionary-Truths-That-Work. Some activists might prefer to frame - in terms of state neutrality and mal legal equality but the question of how society recognizes through its laws and policies raises inescapable moral considerations In the words of President Obama “Our law is by definition a codification of morality”[22] and as the U.S Supreme Court asserted long ago has “more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.”[23] Culture Gender Life and Family Religious Liberty Health Care © 2018 The Heritage Foundation [8]According to The Washington Post “The ad was rejected by sites in three [] states including Maine where the Kennebec Journal inmed Calinians Against Hate that the copy ‘borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.’” Karl Vick ‘The Mormons Are Coming!’ Wash Post available at /wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28 [9] Id (quoting - activist who established entity called “Calinians Against Hate”) [10] Id And family are the building blocks of all human civilization and the primary institutions of civil society --> COMMENTARY3. A growing chorus of scholars who support - recognize that it is impossible to have a “fruitful discussion” of - “without engaging the normative questions.”[24] According to Yale Law Professor William Eskridge example “Opponents and supporters of - both realize that the legal debate is strongly connected to the larger normative debate What is at stake is not just technical legal equality but fundamental social norms and public values in the United States.”[25] [13]Press Release National Gay and Lesbian Task ce “Article of Faith: Multi-faith leaders stand in support of the freedom to marry,” available at /press/releases/pr_nrlr_103008 [14]Press Release Calinia Faith Equality “Over 400 Religious Leaders Faith Organizations Support Right of - Couples to Marry,” S available at .org/documents/events .