Ad nauseam

I felt I needed to share this deplorable editorial from The Dallas Morning News, concerning the upcoming vote in Texas to Constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. (If you don't want to fill out the free registration info at the DMN link, I've printed the piece below in it's entirety.) Someday, someone will have to try and explain to me the hysterical, intolerant, unsubstantiated hyperbole repeated ad nauseam by the proponents of this, and similar, state amendments.

Some repulsive examples:

The plot (or political agenda) begins by promoting homosexual marriage, which will be followed by group marriage and, eventually, the abolition of marriage altogether. The danger is real.
- - - - -
Why would they want to transform the "very fabric of society"? To create a totally different legal structure that allows them to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without the responsibilities or limitations on the number or gender of their partners.
- - - - -
Homosexual relationships simply do not provide the same stability as traditional couples.
- - - - -
There are ancillary effects to legalized gay marriage that most folks have not considered. For example, do you want public schools to be required to teach your children and grandchildren that homosexual marriage is normal? Do you want your church, synagogue or mosque to be forced to hire open homosexuals or face discrimination lawsuits?

These "arguments" are so mindless, baseless, and jus' plain un-Christian that they merit no rebuttal. But I will say this. We should never be proud as Americans to create laws which prejudicially exclude our fellow citizens from those cultural rituals that celebrate things like love, fidelity, and commitment.

It is especially heinous to base those laws on the bigoted idea that a specific "group" is incapable of having the same feelings, the same potential for stability, the same capability for high morals and values as the "normal" populace. That's an idea that I thought we'd agreed back in 1865, and again in the early 1960's, was the antithesis of American attitudes and virtues. And contrary to what Conservative rhetoric would contend, it's been my experience that the committed, monogamous same-sex relationships I've seen, most often look more stable than what passes for marriage on the straight side of the fence.

Our laws should protect, not condemn. They should broaden access to the good things about our culture, not single-out a minority as inherently unworthy of enjoying those very things. To do the latter while clinging stubbornly to prejudice, ignorance, and myth is, simply, uncivilized - and shamefully un-American.

- - - - -

(the following is a copy of the referenced Dallas Morning News editorial as it appeared on-line November 3rd)

Tina Benkiser: Does marriage need defending? Vote yes on Proposition 2

Yes: The institution, tradition and Texas rights are at risk

05:34 AM CST on Thursday, November 3, 2005

I feel a little like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz –life has changed, and I want to go home, where Texans run Texas, where we are free to love God and serve each other and aren't afraid to speak our minds. Yet, I have awakened to liberal Northern activist judges trying to tell "we the people" what we can do, say and believe.

On Nov. 8, join me in reminding them that we Texans are the people and that we will fight vigorously for our rights while defending and protecting marriage and family.

In the election, Texans will have the opportunity to vote for Proposition 2, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It will also help ensure that Texas will not have to recognize or grant legal status to same-sex civil unions, group marriages or other bizarre arrangements from places where activist judges are creating a new legal order whose ultimate objective is to abolish traditional marriage.

The plot (or political agenda) begins by promoting homosexual marriage, which will be followed by group marriage and, eventually, the abolition of marriage altogether. The danger is real.

Take Holland. It was the first country to recognize homosexual marriage and recently became the first to recognize group marriage. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional on privacy grounds, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the ruling would logically lead to the legalization of polygamy and other alternatives to traditional marriage. Now we have a convicted polygamist as well as siblings found guilty of incest appealing their convictions based on the 2003 sodomy ruling.

There is a political agenda at work here to profoundly change the essence of marriage. Gay activists and their supporters have said as much.

Explaining why social radicals who want to do away with marriage altogether should support homosexual marriage, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers stated, "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

And college professor Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, has written, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender and seeking state approval for doing so. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Why would they want to transform the "very fabric of society"? To create a totally different legal structure that allows them to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without the responsibilities or limitations on the number or gender of their partners.

Most of us realize that men and women are neither interchangeable nor mere commodities to be bought and sold in a variety pack. It is widely recognized that traditional marriage is the cornerstone of human society. On the foundation of marriage, we build stable families. Stable families allow us to build safe communities and trustworthy governments that help us live in an ordered society with each other.

Homosexual relationships simply do not provide the same stability as traditional couples.

Some skeptics say, "So what if gay people want to get married? Straights haven't done such a great job of keeping marriages together. How does a gay couple's marriage affect my own?"

There are ancillary effects to legalized gay marriage that most folks have not considered. For example, do you want public schools to be required to teach your children and grandchildren that homosexual marriage is normal? Do you want your church, synagogue or mosque to be forced to hire open homosexuals or face discrimination lawsuits?

These are not rhetorical questions, but issues that we will face if we fail to defend and protect marriage in the constitution.

Now is not the time to destroy more than two centuries of American law and thousands of years of human experience for a failed sociological experiment. If New Jersey and Massachusetts, both embroiled in this battle, want to allow activist judges to do so, that is their choice – but Texans should not be forced to conform to their standards any more than they should conform to ours.

By passing Proposition 2, Texans will send a clear message that we will decide this issue for ourselves.

Tina Benkiser is chair of the Republican Party of Texas. You may e-mail her at info@texasgop.org.