Cross posted at Dirigo Blue
Bob Emrich, one of the founders of Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), has an opinion piece in today's Bangor Daily News, that is clearly over the top. In same-sex marriage would be harmful to society, Emrich argues that allowing same-sex couples to marry will "harm the time-tested institution of marriage," that somehow straight people will be affected by this and not "set marriage as a goal."
Emrich begins by stating only some of the truth:
The truth is no society has ever given anyone an unqualified "right" to marry. Instead, they have always regulated marriage entirely for the benefit of society. Parents cannot marry their children, for example, no one can marry someone under a certain age no matter how much they might love them and no one can marry someone who is already married.
Governments and religions have regulated who could marry.
Make the jump:
For example, Maine didn't repeal its anti-miscegenation law banning whites from marrying blacks or Native Americans until 1883; Wyoming didn't repeal its law (which included Philippinos until 1965). Ireland didn't lift its ban on divorce until 1995. Houses of worship still refuse to marry those it deems unfit (and this is their right that I defend).
The idea that Emrich would have you believe is that laws regarding marriage have not been changed, that they are always as they are now, and that allowing teh gays to marry goes against some long held tradition.
Emrich then argues that denying lesbians and gays the right to marry is really about the health and welfare of children, again while backhandedly lying:
Social science research has now documented what societies throughout human history have learned from practical experience about the importance of marriage: children do best by far on every measure of health and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents. No other arrangement works nearly as well. This body of scientific evidence is now so overwhelming there can be no argument about this fact.
Indeed, studies show that in general, children do better in homes with two parents, but what Emrich fails to state is that it doesn't matter if that couple is the biological parents, nor does it matter if the couple is gay. Children, whether adopted at birth or later, or no better or worse than those reared by their biological parents. Likewise, children reared by same-sex couples fare equally the same as do others.
Emrich states that "a society that fails to do everything it can to protect and support children is literally risking extinction." My guess is that ensuring that no child lives in poverty would be high on this list, but that's another article.
So, the fundamental question, the issue really at stake in this people’s veto vote, is whether legalizing homosexual marriage would harm this time-tested institution of marriage and thereby harm society as a result. Clearly it would.
It would take a social institution that has always been primarily child-centered and radically redefine it into something completely different, a new institution of genderless marriage. Because it is biologically impossible for two individuals of the same sex to produce children, this new genderless marriage institution would make "marriage" nothing more than an official recognition of two people’s professed love for each other.
I'm curious as to how many married couples in Maine do not have children, and will endeavor to find out. But it is of interest that Emrich notes that children do better with two parents, and then argues that "it is biologically impossible" for same-sex couples to have any. Let's skip over the obvious fact that gay couples can adopt children, or that some bring children from a previous marriage into the new one.
Again, there is no difference between children reared by gay or straight parents.
Finally, Emrich reaches the scary part of allowing same sex couples to marry:
Such a radical redefinition would have a dramatic impact on all aspects of society but mostly on our children. No matter what their parents may teach them, Maine schools would indoctrinate their children that homosexual marriage is completely normal and equally desirable as traditional marriage and there is nothing parents could do to prevent it. We know this would happen here because it is happening everywhere that same-sex marriage has been legalized. In Massachusetts, the federal courts have already sided with the schools and against parents on this issue.
As a result, children would view marriage completely different and fewer are likely to set marriage as a goal. That will mean fewer children will be born into the environment that social science has proved is most advantageous to them and society obviously will suffer as a result.
That's right - schools will teach tolerance and acceptance of same-sex couples. This is so abhorrent to Emrich, an ordained minister, that it cannot stand. It doesn't matter to him that LD 1020, the bill that allows teh gays to marry doesn't mention schools at all - no, this is something to be feared.
Fear. His argument is based on fear. And I'll wager that this is all his side has left.
YOU can help defeat the people's veto and preserve equal marriage in Maine by visiting NO on 1/Protect Equality.