[ + ] Text [ – ]

Responses to Attacks:

Here are some of the leading themes in the right-wing's anti-gay attack campaigns and the truth behind the claims:

1. The slippery slope to polygamy: The "polygamy" or "incest" red-herrings are common slippery-slope talking-points from the opposition. When opponents bring up polygamy or other diversions, it means they don't have an answer to the question, "What reason does the government have for denying same-sex couples who have made a personal commitment in their lives the equal commitment of marriage under the law?" Same-sex couples and their kids excluded from marriage are not saying, "Let's have no rules." They are saying, "Let us have what you have — the freedom to marry one person we love, with the same rules, the same responsibilities, and the same respect." This diversionary tactic put forth by the right-wing opposition does not answer the question why a choice of a marital partner should be dictated by the government based on sex or sexual orientation, for which there is no good reason, nor how anyone else's marriage is strengthened by shutting these committed couples and their kids out of the commitment and safety-net of marriage.
2. Marriage is "protected" by denying it to some couples:The anti-gay forces continue to push discriminatory constitutional amendments in the states that assert they "protect" and "defend" marriage. However, it is clear that the true intention of these amendments is to enshrine discrimination in state laws and constitutions and deny any measure of protection for same-sex or unmarried couples and their kids, including prohibitions and rollbacks of civil union, domestic partnerships, or health coverage. Utah is a perfect example of this bait-and-switch: Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Freedom to Marry Voice of Equality, recently signed a law to allow employers to provide benefits to domestic partners. Opponents are invoking the recent Utah constitutional amendment to try to block this law, despite having campaigned last year for the amendment with a promise that their intention was to protect families and "defend marriage." Time has shown that the real effect is to deny important protections to lesbian and gay families and their kids. As the harms sink in, and the opponents' true broad anti-gay agenda is revealed, the Salt Lake City Tribune has joined many Utahns in questioning the veracity of the forces who pushed the discriminatory amendment, and in calling for its repeal.
3. Attacking our families: The odious claim that same-sex parents are harmful to children has been rejected by leading professional organizations in the fields of medicine, psychology, psychiatry, child-welfare, education, public health, and social work, including, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics. The right-wing's attacks on the kids and their parents have been proven false by numerous studies by experts such as Michael S. Wald, Ellin C. Perrin, MD, presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference, The Williams Project, the American Academy of Pediatrics (discussed years earlier here), and many others. In fact, it's the opponents who are harming real kids by denying them and their parents the support that would come to their families through the freedom to marry.
4. Marriage exists to promote procreation: Gay and non-gay people have the same mix of reasons for wanting to marry, for many involving parenting, for many others not. Millions of non-gay married Americans are in non-procreative marriages (think of Bob and Elizabeth Dole, or George and Martha Washington). At the same time, across the United States, more than 39 percent of same-sex couples aged 22-55 are raising children. It makes no sense to punish these children by withholding the structure of marriage from their parents. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia conceded the weakness of the procreation argument in Lawrence v. Texas.
5. Equality means changing the "definition" of marriage: This couldn't be further from the truth. Same-sex couples and their families do not want to change how marriage is defined. Instead they only want to remove a restriction that prevents one group of citizens from access to the same rights and responsibilities afforded to another. These real couples are asking to be included in the current definition of marriage: love, commitment and security shared between two people. When same-sex couples marry, they don't change the "definition" of anyone else's marriage.
   
6. Political diversion: In New Hampshire, a state panel was created to study the pros and cons of marriage equality, domestic partnership, and civil unions within the state and their effects on all aspects of life ranging from economics to parenting. Right-wing politicians, specifically Sen. Jack Barnes (R), hijacked the study and rushed the panel for a vote to propose a constitutional amendment banning marriage and family protections for NH's gay families. The panel had not even completed hearing witnesses, but the right-wing struck when it could, undoubtedly because the vast majority of experts and citizen witnesses who had come forward made a strong case in favor of ending discrimination in marriage, not deepening it.

 

 

[BACK]