Isn't It Just About Love?

Large sums of money have been poured into the Anti-Prop 8 campaign, with ads featuring a couple who want to get married but are having a terrible time even getting to the altar for all the people tripping them up along the way. The tagline is, "What if you couldn't marry the one that you love?"




The website for this campaign, Let California Ring, features a full page of discussion points in favor of gay marriage. We will discuss each one briefly.


  1. Think about it—what if you were told that you couldn't marry the person you loved? How would that make you feel, or change your relationship, your future plans and your life?



This amounts to nothing more than an appeal to the listeners emotions. While emotions are a necessary part of the human experience, they are NOT relevant factors in issues where there are so many logical, legal, and religious reasons to vote AGAINST your emotions.


  1. Two people in a committed, trusting and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage.



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently released a document, entitled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage." A portion of that document states (emphasis ours):


"Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.




It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.




High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task."



  1. People can have different beliefs and still treat everyone fairly.



This is a wonderful sentiment, but it just isn't happening that way. Over the past 10 years, homosexual activists have proven that they will stop at nothing short of full social acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle. This article at npr.org gives 10 specific instances of homosexuals suing to force their beliefs and practices on others. Truly, it appears that "treat everyone fairly" actually means "unless you're opposed to homosexual practices and/or marriage," which, it turns out, is most of America, and, indeed, most of the world.


  1. It is a joy to see my son/daughter and his/her partner together and a part of our family.



This is a very subjective statement, and intentionally excludes those parents who are NOT excited about the lifestyle choice their child has made. Somewhere it must be recognized that most parents would like to see their children in committed, legitimate, heterosexual relationships, bearing them grandchildren.


  1. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it affects. We must work together to fight against discrimination, wherever it appears.



Once again, this statement is absolutely true. Please see #3, above. If this would not have such far-reaching effects on the rest of our society, it might not be such an issue. However, it should be recognized that the legalization of homosexual marriage already, in some states, and the clear bent of some judges in favor of homosexual rights, has already caused discrimination against a larger group of people than those the law claims to serve!


  1. Tradition is important in our family. That’s why we’ve invited our son/daughter’s partner to be a part of our family traditions and celebrations.



This is obviously an attempt to minimize the argument that gay marriage is in contrast with traditional marriage practices. In effect, they are saying, "Look, you've got all these other traditions. Why can't you give up this one?" This attitude manages to overlook the obvious fact that traditions develop over time, as certain behaviors prove beneficial to the values and lifestyles of a group. Over thousands of years, traditional marriage has not yet failed us or proven less than beneficial to our society.


  1. It is not for me to judge other people. Just because I disapprove of something does not mean that it’s wrong.


Certainly, my personal opposition to something does not make it necessarily wrong. Likewise, your approval of something does not make it right, either!


From a non-religious viewpoint, it should be noted that morals, if they are not rooted in religion, are at least rooted in logic. Homosexuality, for instance, is an undeniable means of passing the AIDS/HIV virus; it is also an express route to the end of a family line. Social scientists have also greatly concurred that children grow and develop much better in homes where both a father and mother are present. Even non-religious persons would agree that these make for excellent testimony in favor of heterosexuality.

This statement is also a thinly-veiled attempt to throw Christian scripture back into the faces of those who oppose homosexual practices and/or marriage. They suggest that the Bible tells us not to judge - never, under any circumstances. However, a brief glance through the scriptures will reveal that this is NOT the message, but rather that we "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Clearly, we should judge, and do so according to what is laid out in the scriptures. Interestingly, every major book of scripture that I have read has made it clear that homosexuality is unacceptable, including Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic texts.


  1. Many couples stay together for years and not only face discrimination, but many other challenges. In spite of these challenges, these couples remain courageous in the face of opposition and deeply committed to building happy lives together.



While this makes it sound like a lot of gays dedicate themselves to lifelong monogamous relationships, the truth is that most gays do not.


Otherwise, this statement could easily be about heterosexual couples, as well. It doesn't really give any support for the argument.


  1. When gay and lesbian couples get married, they may finally be recognized as being part of the extended family.



So, if we allow homosexual activists to force the acceptance of gay marriage on society, this will cause extended families to concede that all of their religious, legal, societal, and personal oppositions to gay marriage are now moot? Right...


  1. Domestic partnerships don't provide the same security as marriage. They exclude people from marriage and create an unfair system that often does not work in emergency situations when people need it most.



Objections: 1) Under California law, domestic partnerships must provide the same rights to gay couples as married heterosexual couples. 2) Homosexuals have always been excluded from marriage -throughout all history- because they do not provide for the continuance of the species/society, and do not provide the most stable environment for the growth and development of children. 3) Anything that "does not work in emergency situations" can be worked out without resorting to the redefinition of marriage.