DOMA Talking Points

I. A Healthy Society Requires a Strong Preference for Marriage

It is a fundamental fact of human life that human beings come in two sexes, male and female, different yet designed for one another.  Together they form a unique human community in which children are naturally conceived and raised.  This was true before modern legal systems, and it is still true today. 

Every major society has institutionalized a strong preference for marriage in its customs and laws.  After all, at the very least, procreation is a necessary factor for a society’s continued existence. Marriage, where a man and a woman establish a lifelong community, is the best way to link the generations.  Married couples still conceive and raise most children in our society, and this is something to promote.

Spouses to a marriage tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier than unmarried partners.  This is documented in the recent book by Waite & Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000).

Children of married parents tend to develop in a more healthy way, both personally and in their interaction with society, than children of divorced or single parents.  See Waite & Gallagher on this too.

II. Same-sex relationships are not marriages. 

Persons of the same sex do not form a unique community based on sexual difference.  Calling their relationship a “marriage” requires that we declare that sexual difference makes no difference to society. 

They cannot conceive children.  This means one of two things:  (1) they have to use an anonymous third person, in which case the child will never know his or her father or mother. (2) They have to use a known third person who stays involved, which creates a three-person association unlike traditional marriage.

While same-sex couples can raise children, there is no evidence that this form of child-rearing has the same beneficial effects as marriage-based families.  All existing studies that claim there is “no difference” between this form of child-raising and that of married couples are fatally flawed.  This is documented in the recent study by Lerner & Nagai, No Basis:  What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Marriage Law Project, 2001).

Many advocates of same-sex “marriage” state plainly that their goal is to “deconstruct” our understanding of marriage.  They want to obtain the right to marry so they can “transform” marriage.  Their view of marriage as a “loving, committed relationship recognized by the government” is a redefinition of marriage, not an “extension” of it.  By rejecting the idea of an institution based on a man and a woman, they open to the door to multiple “loving, committed relationships.”

III. Same-sex relationships do not have to be treated like marriages. 

Marriage is unique because of its traditional and foundational role in societal structure.

We may tolerate other relationships, but we do not have to endorse them. 

With respect to same-sex relationships, the real question is, why should they be legally recognized? 

Even if we decide to recognize same-sex relationships in some way, there is no requirement that they be treated like marriage.  They are not marriages, so it is not “discrimination” to treat them differently. 

Either way, every citizen receives equal treatment under the law.  All adults can marry. All adults who do not marry can enter into other non-marital relationships, not public endorsed but privately tolerated. 

There are private mechanisms available for people in non-marital relationships to order their affairs.

IV. Treating same-sex relationships like marriages would be bad for society. 

The fact that same-sex relationships are a reality does not require the government to recognize them as marriage; the educative effect of the law goes far beyond a prohibition of homosexuality. To recognize same-sex marriage would constitute governmental endorsement of same-sex relationships.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” or civil unions would send a clear message to all of society:  there is nothing unique about the community and families that men and women create.  Indeed, the message is even stronger:  If one believes in such uniqueness, one is a bigot, and needs to be “re-educated.” 

In addition, since the law will treat children conceived through a third party the same as children conceived through marriage, the law will send the message that fathers are irrelevant to child-rearing.  Why should society encourage this when it needs to put greater emphasis on responsible fatherhood?

These messages will translate into every government agency, including curricula in the public schools. 

These messages will be enforced through civil rights laws that will give penalties to any employers or organizations (like the Boy Scouts) that refuse to treat same-sex relationships like marriages.

Faith-based organizations that currently provide needed social services will be disqualified from receiving government contracts unless they agree to treat same-sex relationships like marriages.

Children will receive the message that any kind of “sexuality” is as good as another.  This will result in more non-marital sex, including homosexual conduct, promiscuity, confusion, and teen depression.

Since most citizens will not agree with this policy, there will be greater alienation from government.