Doesn’t Proposition 8 strip rights from homosexuals?

No.  Proposition 8 neither strips nor awards any rights to same-sex couples.  Under California law, domestic partners already have all of the benefits of married couples.  What Proposition 8 does do is preserve the definition of marriage as well as give deference to the more crucial right children have to be raised by both a mother and a father.  Just as there is no personal ‘right’ to redefine what a senior citizen is in order to be treated like one, so there is no ‘right’ to redefine marriage as it has always been understood and as a majority of the people continue to understand it.  All have a right to marry as long as they abide by the law.  One cannot marry if one is already married, nor can one marry a close relative, a child, a pet, or someone of the same sex.  Everyone has access to marriage as long as they meet the requirements.  This is not about access to marriage.  It’s about redefining marriage to be something it has never been.  And no one has a right to a behavior that undermines society.

 Isn’t the plight of homosexuals just like the Civil Rights movement 40 years ago?  Isn’t the freedom to marry like freedom of religion or speech?

No.  This argument has enraged African-Americans all over the country.  To imply that Martin Luther King gave his life so that homosexual couples can marry is both a distortion of the truth and a blow to the significance of what he did for racial equality.  It is an affront to African-Americans to say that being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park is on par with laws preventing a man from marrying another man.  Jesse Jackson explains, “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution...and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”  This is a common argument used by gay marriage advocates because it implies that opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots.  While this deceptive name-calling tactic certainly cuts to the quick, nothing could be further from the truth.  It is one thing to believe in civil rights for all regardless of one’s skin color, but it is quite another to believe in civil rights for all regardless of one’s behavior.

 Doesn’t expanding marriage to include homosexuals actually help strengthen marriage?

Just the opposite.  There is recent evidence from the Netherlands, arguably the most ‘gay-friendly’ culture on earth, that homosexual men have a very difficult time honoring the ideal of marriage. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ is legal there, a British medical journal reports male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly ‘committed’ relationships.  Contrast that with the fact that 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last 10 years, and more than three-quarters of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their vows.  The answer here is a resounding ‘No!’  Watering down the definition of marriage does not help strengthen marriage.

 Traditional marriage isn’t doing all that well, with so many divorces, right?

Yes.  Many marriages fail, so should we erase marriage laws?  Certainly not.  We have laws against murder, but some still murder.  Erasing murder laws would be nonsensical.  Thus, if marriage is struggling, rather than abolish it, we should strengthen it.

 Proposition 8 mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else.  That’s just not fair.  Shouldn’t our laws treat everyone equally?  Isn’t it cruel?

Law, by definition, discriminates.  For example, it treats those who obey it differently than those who defy it.  That does not mean, however, that it does not treat everyone equally.  Government has an interest in the education of children because that benefits society, and so the government mandates childhood education.  A child or family who does not want to educate their child has no fundamental right to keep him ignorant.  Similarly, government has an interest in marriage because marriage between a man and a woman stabilizes and enriches society.  Because any may choose to enter into this kind of traditional marriage, it is not discriminatory.  The government gives certain tax benefits to families with children, but is that discriminatory against couples who have no children and who will never want any?  Certainly not.  What is cruel is to intentionally deny children a mom and a dad.

 Isn’t it better for a child to grow up with two loving same-sex parents than to live in an abusive home or be bounced around in foster care?

This is comparing the worst of one situation (abusive heterosexual parenting) with the best of another (loving same-sex parenting).  That’s apples and oranges.  In logic this is called a non-sequitur because the truth of the statement has no bearing on the conclusion reached.  That a child in a home with loving same-sex parents is better off than in an abusive heterosexual home says nothing about whether or not a child is equally as well off in a homosexual home as in a heterosexual one.  In fact, as noted previously, children are decidedly disadvantaged in a homosexual home.

The government has no business getting into our private lives.

Homosexual couples are free to live any lifestyle they wish in their private lives.  Further, civil unions give them virtually all of the benefits enjoyed by married couples.  Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not interfere with that.  Marriage is a publically respected institution, hence the homosexuals demand for it, but dignity and respect cannot be legislated.

 If two people love each other, shouldn’t they be able to commit to each other?

Yes, but we don’t call it marriage.  There are lots of loving commitments that are not marriage.  If one accepts the rationale that love alone justifies marriage, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage as long as there is love; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as natural marriage.  While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage.  We love many people we do not marry.

 Aren’t homosexuals born that way and isn’t it impossible for them to change?  Isn’t it therefore intolerant to prohibit them from marrying?

There have been many attempts by researchers to prove that homosexuals are born that way.  None has proven the case.  Simon LeVay, Ph.D., stated in a 1994 interview that appears in an article entitled "Sexual Brain" published in Discover (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 64-67): “It's important to stress what I didn't find in my clinical study.  I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.  I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.  Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”  In fact, most researchers conclude that homosexual tendencies are formed early in childhood and have to do with the failure of a child to bond with a parent.  Additionally, hundreds of former homosexuals have changed both their orientation and their lifestyles (see www.narth.com and www.exodus-international.org).  Regardless, the more important flaw in this argument is the ‘If it is genetic, then it must be affirmed’ equation.  Even if homosexuality is shown to be genetic, this would not yield the results that are so blithely assumed.  First, we must understand the nature of genetics itself.  There is a difference between those genes that make up the body and those genes that influence our desires and predispositions.  Jones and Yarhouse write, “We are used to thinking of genes as causing us to have things like brown eyes or wavy hair, and choice has little to do with such characteristics.  But behavioral genetics has produced abundant evidence of genetic influences that clearly do not render human choice irrelevant.”  We are responsible for our behavior even if it is genetically motivated.  Surely homosexuals don’t want to say that their genes have rendered them robots, incapable of human choice about their behavior.  They would want to affirm that they are moral agents who should be held accountable for their lifestyle.  In other words, no matter what influence our genetic makeup has on us, we cannot use this as an excuse for a lack of accountability and responsibility.  C.S. Lewis, with searing logic, wrote, “From the statement of psychological fact, ‘I have an impulse to do so and so’ we cannot by any ingenuity derive the practical principle, ‘I ought to obey this impulse...’  Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’  People say different things: so do instincts.  Our instincts are at war.”  (The Abolition of Man)  We cannot argue that the devil or our genes ‘made us do it.’

 How can someone else’s gay marriage possibly affect me?

Same-sex marriage advocates are not seeking marriage alone but are demanding that everyone radically change our understanding of the family, and that will do great damage.  Changing the definition of marriage will teach our children that husband/wife, mother/father, and male/female are merely optional for the family and therefore meaningless.

 Isn’t it true that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether it’s a mother or father?

No.  A child needs a loving mother and father.  A wealth of research over the past 30 years shows this.  Same-sex marriage and parenting, however, intentionally deprive children of a mother and a father.  The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man.  Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman.  A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman.  A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband.  Boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.