Same-Sex "Marriage":
Asking Court to Grant Same-Sex "Marriage" is NOT About Civil Rights
Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst, New Jersey Family Policy Council

On Friday July 22nd homosexual activists filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court asking them to legalize same-sex “marriage”, and overturn two lower court decisions which ruled that granting such rights would be a redefinition of marriage, not a legal extension of it. Since June 2002 when activists first sued the state of NJ for the “right” to marry, they have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is a matter of civil rights, a message the media has consistently trumpeted. This month, one year after special domestic partnership benefits were granted to same-sex couples by the state Legislature, virtually every daily newspaper printed articles of same-sex couples complaining that the new benefits were not enough, because they don’t have all the rights granted to one man and one woman in marriage.

The truth is civil rights or fairness has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex “marriage”. The state Constitution does not recognize a fundamental “right” to marry, which both lower NJ courts affirmed. The reason government supports and encourages the union of one-man and one-woman is because of the common benefits it brings to all of society and particularly children.

Homosexual activists have attempted to equate their quest for marriage rights to the civil rights legalization of inter-racial marriage. Yet they are nothing alike. Racism was about power and suppression; about keeping the races apart, which is wrong. Marriage is about bringing male and female together, which is good. Marriage has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a husband and wife working together to create and care for the next generation. Striking down bans on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying that any woman has a right to marry any man. Same-sex marriage redefines marriage, saying men and women are optional for the family. And what is more, it is a very different thing for a child to say, “I have a black mother and a white father, than “I have two moms and no father.” There is no research that shows inter-racial parenting is developmentally harmful to children but literally thousands of studies indicate that children are hindered developmentally when they are denied their mothers or fathers.

The real issue according to the law is not civil rights, but rather what benefit, if any, would redefining marriage to include same-sex unions bring to society? The societal fallout would far outweigh any presumed benefit. Societal repercussions would include: Teaching impressionable school children that homosexual sex is equal to heterosexual sex, sending a message to society that one-man one-woman marriage is not uniquely important, precipitating an increase in cohabitation rates and subsequent family break-up rates as it has in Scandinavia, and opening up the legal flood gates to legitimizing other types of relationships such as polygamy.

Our laws restricting one’s choice of a marriage partner by gender preserves marriage as an institution that builds bridges to bring men and women together to create future generations and serve the health of society. The NJ Supreme Court should uphold the law as written and affirm marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman as did the two lower courts.

 

 

back...