Hearings Begin On TVC’s California Marriage Protection Amendment

For Publication On Or After May 10, 2005

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The California Assembly and Senate began debate on May 10 on a marriage protection amendment proposed by the Traditional Values Coalition. The amendment is being sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes and Senator Bill Morrow.The amendment is designed to take California’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed as Proposition 22 in 2000 and embed its language into the state constitution. The amendment, however, does more. It also bans homosexual civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide the same legal benefits as traditional marriage.

The need for this amendment is clear. Radical homosexuals in the California legislature are currently trying to amend the state’s family code to remove references to men and women from statutes dealing with marriage. And, an activist judge in San Francisco has recently declared Proposition 22 “unconstitutional.”

The only way to defend marriage from homosexuals and activist judges is to do what 17 other states have already done: embed a traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. The same must be done at the federal level if we are to protect marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

It is encouraging to me that opposition to same-sex marriage is growing in the U.S. As more and more Americans become aware of the serious cultural consequences of legalizing homosexual marriages, they are taking a position that comes down squarely on the side of traditionalism.

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 68% of those surveyed are against homosexual marriage—up from 55% just one year ago. In addition, 57% favor a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a one man, one woman union.

The cultural and emotional dangers of legalizing same-sex marriage are legion. Dr. Stanley Kurtz has written extensively on the devastating consequences that homosexual marriage is having in Scandinavian countries that have legalized it. In Sweden, the idea of homosexual marriage has separated the idea of marriage from parenthood. In addition, Dr. George Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, has recently published a lengthy paper on the serious psychological dangers facing children who are reared in same-sex households.

In his paper, Dr. Rekers deals specifically with an Arkansas regulation that banned homosexuals from becoming foster parents. He defended the Arkansas law, but it was eventually overturned by a liberal judge. Rekers observed: “Replicated research evidence clearly demonstrates that homosexually-behaving adults have substantially higher rates of psychological disorder and substance abuse. Further replicated research demonstrates that parenting by adults with psychological disorders produces emotional and behavioral maladjustment in children.”

Dr. Rekers’ study chronicles a whole range of problems associated with the homosexual lifestyle—including unstable relationships, rampant sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, potential for sexual molestation, and more.

Do we really want to legalize a relationship that is fraught with severe psychological problems, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, and unfaithful relationships? Is this the kind of household in which children should be reared?

The well-being of children is a primary reason why California and other states without marriage protection amendments need to pass them. Children are the future—and what kind of future are we giving them if we put them into unsafe home environments? We must defend traditional marriage and protect children from being thrust into environments that endanger their emotional and physical safety.

Printer Friendly Page -

Email To A Friend - Support TVC - Get Our Newsletter!

More Inside TVC...