The Gay “Marriage” Slippery Slope

One common logical fallacy is that of the slippery slope. It goes something like this, “If we allow X, then Y, which is much worse, is soon to follow. This will be followed by Z, which is even worse.” While this is a logical fallacy (in part because you assume a worst-case scenario in predicting the future), on occasion it does represent the actual order of events in real life.

Here’s an example of a slippery slope. In 2000 the Vermont legislature approved civil unions for same-sex couples. While some were content with the law, others kept hoping it led to a new definition of marriage. They wanted to be fully “married” and not just “unionized.” They were honest about the slippery slope – they never denied it exists, although many downplay the significance of redefining marriage (civil unions are just a small step away).

In one news article back in 2000, we read: “‘All of the horrible things that opponents say will happen are not going to happen,’ adds David Smith, a spokesman for The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in America. ‘Hopefully, by example, many parts of the country and many people will become more comfortable with the idea.'” This reminds me of Alexander Pope’s immortal quote: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mein, as, to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.” That’s what same-sex “marriage” advocates want. They want the public to be familiar with the idea of gay “marriage” then we will eventually embrace it fully.

Here’s a similar quote in a New York Times article: “Gay rights advocates say they are eager to show that the sky will not fall. ‘Same-sex couples will be forming civil unions and the state’s not going to fall apart,” said Beth Robinson, a lead lawyer in the case that prompted the civil unions law. ”It’s just going to be better, and that’s going to be the most helpful part of this dialogue. Because the longer we go with the law in effect, the more incredible the claims of our opponents will be exposed as being.” Yet, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have no problem trying to force acceptance of their immorality on society as a whole.

Now the Vermont senate just approved gay “marriage”; it is expected that the bill will pass through the house without a hitch. The governor may veto the bill though – he supports traditional marriage. However, it is likely that the legislative branch could override the veto. This case of the legislative branch trying to redefine marriage is different from what has been done in other states – the legislative branch, for once, is actually making the law; it’s not a court ruling legislating from the bench.

However, a caption from the article about the issue is a little misleading though: “Vermont could become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without prompting from courts.” Even though the courts were not involved directly, they were in the 2000 legalization of same-sex civil unions. Back then the state supreme court forced the legislature to pass something on the matter; instead of gay “marriage” they allowed civil unions. So, it really was court action that lead to the recent passed bill allowing same-sex “marriages”.

We just need to hope that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands so other states (and the federal government) are not forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” (or even civil unions). We also need to deliberate very carefully about same-sex civil unions because a slippery slope really does exist in this case. As a nation, we’ve slid from view marriages as sacred institutions for raising children, to viewing them as little more than legal arrangements then to not really valuing them other than as self-serving ways to enhance personal satisfaction (hence all the divorces when people feel justly or unjustly victimized), then to inconveniences (and we certainly can’t have any inconviencing children!), and lastly to any relationship between any two (or more, in some cases) people, regardless of gender. The majority of people in the U.S. still believe that marriage should be just between a man and a woman but the times, they are a’changin’, as Bob Dylan sings. This change is not progress; it’s immoral.

Parallels Between the Abortion and Same-sex “Marriage” Movements

Dallin H. Oaks, a lawyer and LDS Church leader, spoke these words about abortion in 1999. I’m posting them here for two reasons. The first is because of his stance on abortion. The second is because of the applicability of his message to the same-sex “marriage” movement today. I’ll post his words, then write a little more about them.

Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made. “Choice” can even become a slogan to justify one particular choice. For example, in the 1990s, one who says “I am pro-choice” is clearly understood as opposing any legal restrictions upon a woman’s choice to abort a fetus at any point in her pregnancy.

More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it….

Being pro-choice on the need for moral agency [also called free will or free agency] does not end the matter…. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices. (Source).

Just as abortion activists turned abortion away from a moral and ethical issue to an issue of a woman’s “rights”, same-sex “marriage” advocates also are trying to turn the issue to one of “rights” and “choice”. The parallels between the movements are striking. The marriage issue is not one of rights or choice, it is one of morals and doing what is in the best interest of society.

Did Mormons Steal Rights?

I discovered a website today that could almost be humorous if it wasn’t filled with misinformation and bridled hatred. Here’s the link to Mormons Stole Our Rights.

What is great about our country is that people are allowed to believe what they want to believe. People can also generally act how they want to act, within limits of course. Let’s look at some of the arguments on this site.

“Was it because Californians no longer saw their constitution as a foundational document that is amended carefully, but a document as pliable as putty and subject to the whims of a narrow majority? No.”

Let’s look at this argument. This website condemns Californians (actually they only condemn Mormons) for changing the state constitution and treating it like it is “pliable as putty.” The funny part is that same-sex “marriages” were only allowed as a result of judges very loosely interpreting the state constitution and reading things into it that weren’t there. The only people treating the California constitution like putty are the activist judges and gay “marriage” supporters.

“How, then, did Proposition 8 become law?” They then answer the question in big, bold, block letters. “THE MORMON CHURCH.” At least they are partially honest when they say that “Mormon votes did not steal our rights.” Of course, that begs the question that same-sex “marriage” is a right (previously, only California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have said that it is a “right” {actually even in those states it’s not called a right, it was just allowed to occur} – now Californians have stated that no, it is not a right).

Then the website goes on to blame the passing of Prop 8 on “Mormon money.” Let’s look at that argument. I’ll use their argument to make an alternative one of my own. If the money donated by Mormons stole away the rights of gays in California, then all the money raised by Obama stole the candidacy from Clinton and the presidency from some other candidate, arguably McCain (additionally, he chose to campaign with public money and therefore had a limit on what he could spend, unlike Obama). My argument really isn’t valid but that is because their original argument about Mormon money isn’t valid. Besides, what they conveniently fail to mention is that opponents of Prop 8 raised and spent $6 million more than the proponents of Prop 8 ($38 to $32 million). How can “Mormon money” steal away rights if the anti-Prop 8 side raised and spent more money?

The website goes downhill from there. It becomes more and more incorrect (for example they argue, “The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place.” The persecution of Mormons, which they glossed over, showed just how tolerant we are as a country. Yep, our country was so tolerant that Mormons’ lands were stolen and Mormons were killed, raped, and driven from their homes). What’s ironic is that if our country is so tolerant and forgiving, where is the tolerance and forgiveness from many same-sex “marriage” advocates (especially this website that attacks Mormons and claims falsely that Mormons stole their rights)? Where is their tolerance and forgiveness of religion and religious beliefs? Where is their tolerance for majority rule and democracy (or, to be pedantic, representative democracy – although the voters in California passing Prop 8 is an example of pure democracy because they directly voted on the matter).

I’ll point out another misleading statement: “The Mormons began [i.e., forcing their beliefs upon gays] with the Boy Scouts of America, originally a children’s club meant to introduce boys and girls to the natural beauty of America.” Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouting movement started Boy Scouts to teach young men how to camp, cook, and survive in the wild; mainly, his goal was to build strong men of strong character who were honest, chaste, chivalrous, and good people. He was a military man who wanted to teach the boys many of the skills he learned in the military (in part so they would be ready for military service should the call arise). Appreciation of the earth and the “wild” were only secondary goals (and added only later as a focus). The authors of this website clearly have not read Baden-Powell’s Scouting for Boys, which talks about such activities as tracking, woodcraft, scouting (military scouting), hunting, saving a life, and patriotism. The American scouting movement was based on Baden-Powell’s work and was not about introducing “boys and girls to the natural beauty of America” (although that is an important but secondary aspect today).

The site goes on to briefly mention the “minority vote.” “Many people have commented that minorities voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. This was especially disappointing given the history of bigotry and discrimination these groups have faced. This vote serves as evidence of the degree to which minority groups can be pitted against each other with misinformation and fear. Californians were 60-40 against Prop 8 prior to the Mormon tidal wave of money in September, 2008. Prop 8 demonstrates how readily money moves elections.” Notice how careful they are not to single out any minority groups (i.e., they don’t name any group) and they certainly don’t attack them as they attack Mormons because that would be racist. They are also condescending toward minorities when they say, “This vote serves as evidence of the degree to which minority groups can be pitted against each other with misinformation and fear” (emphasis added); in other words, minorities apparently are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions and only voted based on misinformation and fear. How offensive! Further, they bring up the money issue again; however, they fail to point out that the $38 million raised to fight Prop 8 was trying to move the election in their favor. They hypocritically condemn supporters of Prop 8 for doing exactly what they themselves did – spending money to try to affect the outcome of the election.

Here is one of the highlights of the website: “To the rest of those silent Mormon protesters [who silently opposed Prop 8], one can offer the words of Elie Wiesel…” then they quote Wiesel. This is a clever quote and use of Wiesel’s name because they use them to stir up sympathy for their cause among the silent anti-Prop 8 Mormons. By using Wiesel’s quote, they compare gays being denied ‘marriage’ to their partners to the Jews who experienced great persecution and the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. How offensive to Jews that this comparison is being made! Gays are not being branded, taken away from their homes, and worked/killed in concentration camps. They are not being gassed or incinerated. They are not even being denied any rights – they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If that is not a desired outcome then they have the right to choose not to get married; they can also form a civil union, which is allowed in California. The LDS Church does not and never will condone anger and hostility: “The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people” (Source).

The website then goes on to call for the Church to lose its tax-exempt status, even though the Church has always been very open about its involvement and has produced or will produce by the deadline all of its contributions (which were all non-monetary – the only money given from the “Mormon Church” came from individual members acting of their own free will) to the Prop 8 cause. The LDS Church acted well within its constitutional and legal rights to become involved in the Prop 8 movement.

Here’s what the website says after stating that the Church did not violate the letter of the law (although they said that their “experts” said that it was “unclear” if the Church did or not violate the law – which is legalspeak for “there is no evidence of wrongdoing”): “Because it is already illegal for churches to support candidates or lobby and remain tax-exempt, we must close this loophole and make it illegal for churches to support propsitions at such disproportionate levels without classifying themselves as a Political Action Committee. We must clarify our tax law to prohibit this behavior.” What are they saying? They are saying that it is not illegal for the Church to be involved like it was and still remain tax-exempt, so that means that they want to make it illegal in the future for the Church to act in a like manner. In essence they are saying: “We have to make it illegal for churches to be involved in issues like this so they can’t stop us trying to force our beliefs onto everyone else.”

Further, at the bottom of the page they link to sites where you can buy ridiculously overpriced t-shirts showing your support for same-sex “marriage”. What’s hypocritical is a link to a “No more Mr. Nice Gay” t-shirt right by a link to a “NoTime2H8” shirt. Isn’t that a bit contradictory?

It’s sad when people resort to such hatred and lies about and towards another group of people. I recognize that they may be very sincere in their beliefs but stooping to such tactics is uncouth and dishonest.

Update: Here is further commentary about the Mormons Stole Our Rights site, which might be an anti-Mormon site fronting as a pro-gay marriage site.

Dishonest Tactics of Florida “Same-sex Marriage” Advocates

A pro-“gay marriage” group has a website that I visited the other day. Nowhere do they talk about gay marriage; they just talk about how if Amendment 2 is passed in Florida it will hurt seniors, destroy higher-education (seriously!), and remove rights of all unmarried people. Basically, all the arguments were completely false. If I hadn’t known better I would have thought the site was a spoof site. You have to check out this page (notice the pictures at the top of the screen).

Here are their “6 reasons to Say No”:

“Taking Away Benefits
Amendment 2 could take away existing benefits from all unmarried Floridians
Hurting Seniors
Amendment 2 could force seniors to choose between important benefits like sharing health care and important government benefits.
“Gay Marriage” Bait & Switch
Amendment 2 claims to ban “gay marriage” but Florida already has multiple laws banning same-sex marriage
Massive Government Intrusion
Amendment 2 puts the government where it doesn’t belong – regulating the personal relationships of Floridians
Hiring Expensive Lawyers
Amendment 2 could force unmarried Floridians to hire expensive private lawyers just to protect their basic legal rights
Dramatic Consequences
Amendment 2 could take away job benefits from university employees and be used as a defense to domestic violence – as in other states which passed similar amendments”

The site is very deceiving – I hope that the citizens of Florida see through it. I hope that the citizens of Florida will stand up for marriage and pass Amendment 2.

Here’s an email I received about a new ad (created by the same group as that website) attacking Amendment 2 in Florida, which seeks to protect marriage. The same-sex marriage advocates are stooping very low (i.e., lying) to drum up opposition to Amendment 2.


(Orlando, FL) Florida Red and Blue, a political committee and front group for a coalition of homosexual groups opposing Amendment 2, has released a TV ad which is both factually wrong and attempts to mislead and scare senior citizens. The ad will be aired on Florida stations during the Democrat National Convention through out this week.

The campaign commercial has a prominent theme which is repeated three times asserting that the marriage amendment is an attempt by the government to interfere “into our private lives”. Other parts of the ad state that defeating Amendment 2 would “keep government out of our private lives” and that “personal marriage issues should be decided by you, your family and clergy, not by the government.” *

“This ad is just factually wrong and Red and Blue needs to be held accountable for false and misleading advertisements” said John Stemberger, State Chairman of the official sponsor of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. “To the contrary, the citizen initiated and citizen led Amendment 2 has nothing at all to do with government action. It has everything to do with citizen action stopping the government from redefining marriage against their will. Amendment 2 allows the people and not activist judges to decide how marriage will be defined in Florida. This is only the first of a series of ads in an avalanche of fraud and deception that is going to flood the airways in the October.”

The campaign commercial also states* that “Democrats are United against Amendment 2 in Florida.” This is not accurate or factually correct. Over three quarters of a million Florida voters signed a citizen’s initiative petition to get the marriage amendment on the ballot. Well over 33% of those Floridians who signed the petition are registered Democrats. The recent June 3, 2008, Quinnipiac Florida poll demonstrates that a significant 45% of democratic voters in Florida support Amendment 2. Even Senator Barack Obama in the recent Saddleback forum with Rick Warren clearly stated, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” “This hardly seems like unity among Democrats on the issue of the definition of marriage” said Eladio Armesto, the Chairman of the Florida Democratic League who is a major supporter of Amendment 2 in South Florida.

Stemberger said, “Marriage is not a democrat or a republican issue. It’s not even a liberal – conservative issue. It is a human issue and a moral issue—and one which Floridians will vote yes on in overwhelming numbers on November 4, 2008.”

Finally, the unanimous Florida Supreme Court made up of democrat and republican appointees has ruled that Amendment 2 is about the “singular subject” of marriage and that the effect of the amendment does nothing new as it merely takes the existing law on marriage and places it into the state constitution as 27 other states have done. (1) “Telling senior citizens that they will lose social security and or domestic partner benefits by voting yes on 2 is outright fraud and preys upon Florida’s most vulnerable and precious citizens” commented Stemberger.

For more information or further comment contact: at or call 407-251-1957

* The verbatim wording of the TV Ad states:
“Democrats are united against Amendment 2 in Florida. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Representatives Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Robert Wexler are all saying vote no on 2. Amendment 2 bans domestic partners, hurting many seniors and letting government into our personal lives. Alex Sink, Cathy Caster and Kendrick Meek oppose Amendment 2 because personal marriage issues should be decided by you, your family and clergy, not the government. Keep government out of our private lives. Vote No on 2.” (Emphasis Added)

(1) “…the amendment essentially tracks the language of the current statutory provision….The proposed amendment is essentially inserting this statutory scheme into the constitution with language substantially similar to the statutory provision itself.” See Opinion to the Attorney General, 926 So.2d 1229 (2006).”

Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage

Citizens of three states will be voting this fall on state constitutional amendments defining marriage as that between a man and a woman. This is in response to increased pressure on governments to allow homosexual couples to get married. Some judges have also taken upon themselves legislative roles and they seek to create laws from the bench. Judges are supposed to interpret the law and act within the boundaries of the law, not change the law. To paraphrase the great South African author Alan Paton – judges are supposed to judge according to the law, even if the law is unjust. If it is unjust but the judge judges based on the law, that judge has done his or her duty. If laws are unjust, it is the duty of the people and politicians to change the law, not the judges.

Unfortunately, some of our judges take more responsibility upon themselves than they should. We have judges in California who have decided that a law passed in 2000 by 61% of the people is unconstitutional. State and Federal Supreme Court justices are able to declare laws unconstitutional but the reasoning used by the judges is ludicrous. One Arizona attorney has been providing commentary on his blog about the topic.

I believe that marriage is a basic right for humankind. All governments should defend the institution of marriage. Marriage and families are the basic unit of society. Since it is a basic right, should not all people be allowed to marry if they want to? Yes, they should. However, what we cannot have happen is have marriage redefined to mean anything other than marriage between man and woman. That is what proponents of homosexual marriage want to do – redefine marriage. Marriage is not only a legal institution but also a sacred institution. It is the foundation upon which to have children; that is the purpose of marriage – having children. Yes, marriage can be and is fulfilling for the couple but ultimately it is a relationship that will produce children, assuming physical or medical limitations do not preclude the potential to have children.

Some may argue that it is unfair to homosexuals to exclude them from marrying; they do not have control over their genes and biology. No research has clearly shown that homosexuality is completely caused by genes. There sometimes is a predisposition to homosexuality because of how certain genes are expressed; however, genetics explains relatively little of the total variance in homosexuality. In other words, there are a lot of other factors that are involved in why someone is homosexual. Is a genetic predisposition for some people enough of a reason to redefine marriage? No.

Some people might have a genetic disposition towards violence but our laws do not excuse abuse or assault or murder just because someone might have some genes that predispose them to violence. Many people with such genes (assuming they exist) find more acceptable ways to express those tendencies (e.g., boxing, or football, or the military, or rock climbing, etc.). Maybe someone else has a gene that predisposes them to lie and steal. Neither are generally acceptable behaviors and our legal system does not and should not try to redefine stealing as taking something from someone else without their permission except if the thief has the “thief gene”. A person might have the genetic predisposition for alcoholism but that doesn’t mean they will or should become alcoholic. It doesn’t excuse that behavior. All it takes for them to avoid alcoholism is abstinence. The same applies to anyone who might have genetic homosexual tendencies. Some may argue that violence and murder and lying and stealing all hurt other people but homosexual behavior doesn’t and same-sex marriage wouldn’t. Just because there might not be immediate consequences does not mean there will be no consequences. Redefining marriage is attacking the basic fiber of society.

Homosexuality also doesn’t make evolutionary sense because it stops genetic material from being passed on. Yes, it might fulfill some needs of some individuals but it takes some serious wrangling of the theory of evolution and some serious leaps in and lapses of logic to explain how homosexuality could fit in with the theory of evolution.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently published an article explaining their position on marriage. I’ll reprint a few main points from the article:

  • “The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”
  • “The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
  • “Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”
  • “Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place ‘church and state on a collision course.'”
  • “Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment.”

We are faced with a fundamental shift in our society. It has serious societal and political ramifications. I urge anyone who can to get as involved as they are able in standing up for the protection of marriage.