Wednesday, July 06, 2011

"I Was Wrong About Same-Sex Marriage"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
"I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue...Yet, I find myself strongly untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage---a vote that probably signals that most 'blue' states will follow within the next ten years."


"The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test."
------David Frum, in his apology column for CNN last week.

He concluded, "If people like me would have been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half."

But facts are not on his side.

First, where and when has homosexual "marriage" been "tested"? Homosexual "marriage" has not been tested nationwide.

Six state governments---6 out of 50, now sanction homosexual "marriage." That is hardly a national testing.

Of the 6 states; New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire, and in 2, maybe more, there is significant opposition organizing against the law and the legislature that passed it.

Frum's talking points are the same ones I have heard a hundred times.

I have told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross several times in live interviews in Seattle that gay marriage won't directly affect my personal marriage, today. However, the redefinition of marriage contributes to the general decline of natural marriage, by promoting, through entitlements and benefits, people living together under virtually any circumstance.

Frum's column was telling. And he missed the point completely when he wrote, "By coincidence, I am writing these words on the morning of my own 23rd wedding anniversary. Of all the blessings life has to offer, none equals a happy marriage."

That's the point, Mr. Frum. That's why redefining it is a very bad idea.

That's why the Bible instructs us to "honor" marriage, referring to natural marriage between a man and a woman.

I know of no one who is suggesting that homosexual "marriage" today will destroy natural marriage tomorrow. It's a symbol of a broader devaluation of natural marriage that is of concern. And of the moral decline it promotes.

The same people who advocate for homosexual "marriage," also advocate for domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc, all of which honor and reward those who live outside marriage.

In a morality based culture, that is considered immoral. And the government rewards the immoral behavior.

Since homosexual "marriage" was legalized in the Netherlands, the number of marriages has declined. It's down 10% since 1999, while registered partnerships have increased 500% according to William C. Duncan at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Duncan found 9 in 10 couples live together before marrying and 2/3 of co-habitating couples "plan to marry" but keep postponing the marriage.

And the arguments for homosexual "marriage" are the same today as they were 14 years ago when Frum opposed it, except....

Homosexuality has evolved from an act-sodomy; to a behavior-homosexuality; to an identity-gay, while the advocates have their" conversation " with the public declaring that theirs is a biologically driven behavior, therefore they are not responsible and it is not a choice.

The social battering ram is their identifying with the civil rights struggles of African Americans.

Gay is not Black. Sexual behavior is not the same as race. But people are led to believe it is in the name of gay advocacy.

Frum is a result of the deception. And so are many of our kids in the classroom.

Chuck Donovan, with the Heritage Foundation, gives 5 key impacts of the New York Marriage decision.

They are:

1. The vote confirms an adverse trend for marriage law in New York.

2. The policy change emanates from the legislature and is reversible by the legislature.

3. Religious liberty is suffering a death of a thousand cuts and the collision of religious/moral conscience and non-discrimination laws still looms.

4. Redefinition of the family is the clear goal of same-sex activists.

5. Marriage is a mega issue and merits a full scale national debate in 2012.

I have linked his column above. I am joining others in asking for a national debate and a national vote on marriage.

I will update you.

Thank you for your support.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. It's entertaining to watch the right change their tune regarding the supposed detrimental effects of same-sex marriage as the years pass and we move toward greater acceptance in this country.

    According to Gary we will not see the negative effects of SSM until the ENTIRE country has it... Until then, you won't notice a thing. Um, right.

    The bottom line is that we've had SSM in this country since 2004, and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of SS couples have married in these states and now live in all 50 states. Another dozen states, like WA, have DPs and civil unions, which Gary has flatly said are marriage by another name. One has to wonder if we can’t register the effects after all that, if there really is anything to worry about?

    Frum gets it, as to a majority of Americans. Gays should not have to wait to marry until after straights figure out how to respect and value it. The increasing divorce rate and infidelity that plagues straight marriages are not the fault of gays. Gays’ desire to marry is not a condemnation of marriage; it is an affirmation of it.

    PS .. That oft-repeated marriage stats from the Netherlands are garbage. Marriage rates are declining all over Europe, including in countries that do not allow SS couples to marry. Besides, two paragraphs above, Gary says, "I know of no one who is suggesting that homosexual "marriage" today will destroy natural marriage tomorrow" -- isn't that what he's implying here?

  2. "I know of no one who is suggesting that homosexual "marriage" today will destroy natural marriage tomorrow."

    Not anymore, that is. Apparently, as your predictions of the end of hetero marriage and procreation are proven wrong - you're backing off the hyperbole. That's good.

    Yes folks, even Gary's opposition to gay marriage is slowly evolving in the face of reality.

    Mark in Tigard

  3. 1. Only if you view equality as an adverse trend.

    2.Yes, it is just like Washington State's DOMA - the only public opinion that has been verified at the polls is that the Domestic Partnerships, with all the rights of marriage, and which the opposition called marriage throughout the campaign has received the whole-hearted and resounding endorsement of the People.

    3.Red herring. A New Yorker, who opposes same-sex marriage, finds themselves in the exact same position with regard to non-discrimination law as one, who opposes interfaith marriage or remarriage. I have yet to hear anyone opposed to equality explain why the latter is perfectly acceptable and the former is a major threat to "religious freedom".

    4. Redefinition of the family is a fact. All that marriage equality does is have the government acknowledge that fact.

    5. As opposed the full scale national debate that has been going on the last two decades? It's exactly this sort of disingenuous argumentation that makes thinking people reject the anti-equality "arguments"

  4. Thanks,Gary, for telling it like it is and taking the heat.

  5. Gary and others of his ilk said the EXACT same thing about mixed marriage 40-80 and more years ago. Gary and his ilk said the same thing about more than one religion in society 500 years before that. Nothing new under the sun - Pharisees are all and always will be the same. Jesus taught us about them.

  6. The perverts continue to fiddle while Rome burns.
    Thanks Gary, for contending for the faith, Godspeed.

    Craig in Lacey

  7. The moral decline started when the federal courts started messing with the states' rights to regulate marriage. That started when the supreme court forced the states to accept marriages between members of races that the Lord intended to keep separate. This problem also poses a threat to the religious liberty of those who sincerely believe that the Lord intended to keep the races separate. The Lord intended to keep the races separate. Gen 28:1, Deut 7:2-3, 22:9 and 23:2, Jeremiah 13:23.

    And don't even get me started with no-fault divorce (aka "divorce on demand) and how little was done to stop that wave of immorality that swept the nation in the 70s and 80s.

    Gary is right, you know, but a little late on the draw. I wish people like him had come along to defend marriage about fifty years ago.

  8. Gary says that gay marriage will not have been truly tested until it is enacted in every state. Gary also believes that new drugs are not really tested unless everyone in the country takes a dose.

    BTW, why does Gary refer to only 6 states as having gay marriage? His position during the R-71 fight was that civil unions were basically the same thing as gay marriage, so he really should be referring to 15 states plus DC.

  9. To the person who thinks God intended races to stay seperate. You clearly dont know your Bible. 1st all there is only one race- the human race that just happens to come in a variety of colors, just like others of God's creatures. There is nothing in the Bible about "race" at all. Marrying within your own belief system IS recommended, but that has NOTHING to do with race. Church's & pastors should never be forced to marry gay couples if it is against their beliefs. Right now that is all I have to say on that issue.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.