Marriage Equality
A few weeks ago, Peter from the FIC Blog submitted a guest post to spazeboy.net on the topic of marriage, which I published here. After re-reading his post just now, it’s quite clear that he’s arguing against full marriage equality on the premise that gay people are weird or icky:
Can we hope that Dawn’s case is an extreme one? Sure, but even the best, most made-for-tv same-sex households will produce children who, like Dawn, will “not see the value of biologically complementing differences of male and female.” And the proportion of same-sex households that will fit the happy picture our opponents present to the legislature remains to be seen. As noted by Dawn, a growing body of evidence already suggests that her experiences are not as unique as the MSM—if they were to cover Dawn at all—would likely have you believe.
First he hopes that the case he cites is extreme. Then without skipping a beat, he begins to argue that her case is not extreme at all, first by writing that even the “best, most made-for-tv same-sex households will produce children who…will ‘not see the value of biologically complementing differences of male and female,’” and then by concluding that “a growing body of evidence already suggests that her experiences are not as unique as the MSM…would likely have you believe.” His argument against marriage equality is based on his personal distaste for homosexuals. So when it comes to marriage equality, the FIC’s arguments are blindly attached to some creed and intolerant toward others.
In today’s Courant, Leslie K. Wolfgang has a different take. She argues against marriage equality on the basis that it institutionalizes fatherlessness:
What concerns me and others is that same-sex marriage will, in the long term, further discourage men from becoming responsible parents through the social institution of marriage. Statistics show that this fatherless-ness hurts children and their mothers by making them more likely to be poor, sexually abused, under-educated and engaged in illegal behavior.
It’s an interesting tactic to tie poverty, sexual abuse, lack of education and criminal activity to full marriage equality. That’s what I’d call a diversion.
Our youngest generations, relying on the rule of law to help them form their minds as to what society expects, will take the senator’s suggestion to its logical conclusion that because they are optional, fathers don’t really matter for marriage and children.
Now these kids are suddenly “relying on the rule of law” as a model for living their lives? If that were true, then at least we can strike “engaged in illegal behavior” from the list of problems that Wolfgang asserts stem from fatherlessness.
The purpose of licensing marriage is to encourage the most stable environments for raising well-adjusted future citizens.
That would be a slippery slope toward outlawing childless marriages. (Do I sound as outrageous as she does yet?)
Gay activists have not hidden their agenda to use marriage to increase tolerance. I and others are not unsympathetic to the young children of gay parents paraded at the Capitol, their small, illiterate hands holding signs pleading for “equality” under Connecticut law.
Though WTNH no longer has the streaming video report online, the tiny photo here shows what appear to be children with anti-marriage equality stickers pinned to their small, illiterate jackets.
Leslie is writing as a member of the Connecticut Commission on Children. Peter is writing as director of public policy for the FIC. They’re both on the same side of this issue, but their arguments are different. Peter argues that marriage equality allows for one father too many. Leslie argues that marriage equality is the gateway to widespread fatherlessness. Interesting.