Recently, US Congressional Representative for NJ Steve Rothman (D-Fairlawn) changed his views and says he now supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.  Why?  It seems he’s had a change of heart because one of his step-children from his new marriage is a lesbian. 

At first glance, Rothman’s embrace of his step-daughter would seem to be the right thing. However, moving beyond the love for an individual step-child he now wants to impose his new found belief on the rest of his constituents and for that matter the rest of the country.

He has forgotten the realities of why we must never redefine marriage for all of society. It is Rothman’s prerogative as a parent to “support” his daughter as he chooses, but he does not have the right as our legislator to support legislation that would redefine marriage for everyone else. Just last Fall, 61% of New Jersey voters polled¹ said that “same-sex couples have a right to live as they choose, but they do not have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.”  

What are the factual reasons Rothman has for changing his position and supporting same-sex ‘marriage’?  While any parent wants to see their children live a happy life, supporting a child’s unhealthy same-sex behavior doesn’t lead them to a happy life and neither will advocating the redefinition of marriage.  

As a nurse and now an ex-gay, I left the homosexual lifestyle after watching too many friends die of AIDS. Aside from the extreme higher risk of disease, partner abuse, and high rates of promiscuity associated with same-sex behavior, research shows that same-sex unions are remarkably fragile.  Recent 2006 statistics on same-sex unions from Scandinavia where same-sex marriage has been legal the longest, show these unions end in divorce significantly more than one-man, one woman married couples.  The divorce risk for gay men is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual couples and the divorce risk for partnerships of lesbian women is about double the rate compared to heterosexual couples. Furthermore, the majority of same-sex couples abroad and in the US do not even enter into same-sex unions once they become legal. In NJ, only 1% of more than 248,000 gay/lesbian New Jerseyans has formed a civil union which gives them the same rights as heterosexual marriage.     

Children are one of the most important reasons why marriage should remain as the union of one man and one woman. In addition to same-sex homes not being as stable on average, we have also painfully learned from the culture of divorce that children need both a mother and a father. It is one thing for some marriages to fail and leave those children at a disadvantage; it is completely another to create public policy that says male and female are merely optional, not essential for marriage, family and society. We ask Congressman Rothman, which parent is dispensable, the mother or the father? 
Same-sex proponents are asking everyone to dramatically and permanently alter their definition of the family by saying male and female do not really matter. That is harmful to all of us.
               
Another current explosive issue Rothman seems to ignore is the growing religious freedom violations both abroad and now here in the US and NJ. Same-sex unions coupled with hate crime laws are being used not only to criminalize moral opposition, but to remove other rights as well. The Ocean Grove Methodist Camp Association was sued last year by two lesbians for not allowing them to perform their civil union in their boardwalk pavilion and is appealing the state’s decision to remove their tax status on that property to a federal court. In the same October 2007 poll mentioned above, New Jerseyans were clear:  60% believe that the Methodist organization’s religious freedoms outweigh alleged discrimination.

New Jersey has passed a civil union law in 2006 which gives same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage without redefining marriage for everyone else.  One can only hope that Rep. Rothman will look at the real facts not just for the sake of his step-daughter, but for the general welfare all of society which he is sworn to uphold.     

back to Editorials