Gay Marriage Doesn’t Affect Opposite-Sex Marriage Rates

One of the most ludicrous and disingenuous talking points of the anti-gay marriage crowd (they are really anti-gay and not just anti-gay marriage) is that somehow gay marriage will harm heterosexual marriage and damage the "institution of marriage."  A new study confirms that such claims are - like just about everything else that comes out of the mouths of the Christofascists, Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic hierarchy - lies.  Thus, the only real motivation for opposing gay marriage is to keep same sex couples inferior under the law so that the "godly Christians" can feel superior and point to anti-gay laws as a justification for their own hate and bigotry.  Here are highlights on the study findings via Think Progress:

States that have passed marriage equality legislation have seen no impact on their rates of opposite-sex marriage, according to a new study published Tuesday. 

The study, authored by Alexis Dinno and Chelsea Whitney of Portland State University’s School of Community Health, was published in the online research journal PLOS ONE. Dinno and Whitney compared rates in the 13 states which had legalized marriage equality or strong civil unions before 2009 to those in other states, finding that opposite-sex marriage rates did not differ in those states to a statistically significant degree:

“We found that state rates of opposite sex marriage in the U.S. from 1989–2009 do not significantly differ when same sex marriage and union laws are in force compared to when they are not in force, contrary both to concerns raised by opponents of same sex marriage and same sex civil unions,” the authors wrote.

The idea of marriage equality as an “attack on traditional marriage” is a favored talking point of opponents. In April, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said legalizing same-sex marriage would discourage marriage among heterosexual couples because the traditional understanding of marriage as a means of reproduction would erode. The Family Research Council has argued that “traditional” marriage keeps men from cheating on their wives once the women are no longer fertile. Two anti-marriage equality advocates from the Heritage Foundation said it would lead to the erosion of marital norms, even though opposite-sex couples already cheat, divorce, and decline to have children (or are unable to), even in states that still restrict marriage.

While there is no harm to opposite-sex couples, studies have shown that ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage are actually psychologically harmful to the gay community.

Yes, there is documented harm to same sex couples and that's the goal of opponents to gay marriage.  They actively seek to harm same sex couples and punish us for failing to adhere to their sick, ignorance, fear and hate based religious beliefs.   Yes, it's an ugly truth, but that is the face of conservative Christianity in 2013. And leading the charge are hate groups like FRC and NOM - and, of course Catholic bishops across the world.

Is Anti-Gay Protect Marriage Broke?

While the National Organization for Marriage never seems short of money - I suspect thanks to the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and the Knights of Columbus - as the Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling striking down Proposition 8 nears oral arguments in March, Protect Marriage, the anti-gay organization which is defending Prop 8 since the State of California has refused to do so is now claiming that it is broke.   Given the Christofascist proclivity to lie incessantly, it is hard to know whether the whining is true or merely a form of scare tactics to drive Kool-Aid drinkers and anti-gay extremists to take out their checkbooks and stroke checks.  Reuters has coverage of Protect Marriage's purported financial straits.  Here are highlights:

ProtectMarriage.com, the advocacy group defending a California gay marriage ban now under review by the high court, showed a $2 million deficit in its legal fund at the end of 2011 - the third year in a row that expenses exceeded donations, federal tax records show.

The 2012 accounts are not yet available. ProtectMarriage.com says it has since covered the 2011 shortfall. However, it is still $700,000 short in fundraising for its Supreme Court costs, according to a ProtectMarriage.com attorney, Andrew Pugno. That message has gone out to donors, with some urgency, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in March in its first thorough review of same-sex marriage.

"Unless the pace of donations starts to pick up right away, we could soon be forced over a financial cliff," ProtectMarriage.com said in an email to donors earlier this month.

ProtectMarriage.com's lead outside counsel, Charles Cooper, has not stopped work on the Supreme Court case, although he declined to comment on financial arrangements with clients.

But gay marriage opponents' money problems go beyond legal fees for the landmark case: they were vastly outspent in four state ballot campaigns last fall, and lost all of those races.

The fund-raising fall-off is a result of donor fatigue, the dramatic rise in public support for gay marriage and the softening of some major gay marriage opponents, including the Mormon Church, people involved with the campaigns say. Both individuals and institutions opposed to gay marriage say many are fearful of being associated with the cause.

A group of corporations opposed to DOMA has formed the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, including Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of Reuters News.

I for one hope the claims of financial straits are true.   And kudos to the corporations that have stepped up to help remove religious based bigotry from the nation's laws.

A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage?

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch have an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times that suggests a middle ground of sorts on the ongoing battles over gay marriage which would provide LGBT couples with many of the same rights and benefits that derive from marriage yet still reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples. The proposal would in effect create a "separate but equal" status which would not necessarily be available in all states due to certain prerequisites on state law provisions. Nevertheless, the proposal would have the potential to provide LGBT couples many more rights than are now available. The reality that the authors fail to address is the fact that in many states it will not be possible to get civil union laws enacted anytime soon, especially in anti-gay states like Virginia, and many LGBT couples would remain less than full citizens.

*

The other interesting aspect of the proposal is that it would help expose the myth that Christianists are only out to "protect marriage." Anyone who has seriously followed Christianist organizations knows that their true goal is to denigrate LGBT citizens and make us societal outcasts. "Protecting marriage" is merely a convenient smoke screen to hide their true hate-based agenda. These people will never agree to civil union laws which would give any form of legitimacy to gay unions. Truth be told, if they could, these folks would happily re-enact the sodomy laws and imprison gays if they could. They have no good will and seek only to impose their religious beliefs on all citizens. Here are some highlights on the proposal:

*

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

*

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

*

[W]e agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon. . . . Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides. . . . If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.

*

But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.