Homosexual relationships cannot produce children in and of themselves. In that sense homosexual relationships might appear irrelevant to society. But homosexual relationships, instead of being irrelevant, are profoundly harmful to society.

First, homosexual relationships are a well-spring for the recruiting of youth and others to become homosexual practitioners. The scientific evidence demonstrates that those who engage in homosexuality are less apt to get married, less apt to be faithful marriage partners if they get married, and less apt to produce well-socialized children if they have progeny.

Further, those who engage in homosexual relationships disproportionately engage in criminality, child molestation, interpersonal violence, illicit drug use and other forms of substance abuse, more frequently test as mentally disturbed, and contribute less to the commonweal.

Secondly, homosexual relationships disproportionately spread disease (e.g., AIDS, hepatitis B, syphilis). Many of these diseases cost society a great deal (perhaps as much as 1% of the United States' Gross Domestic Product [GDP] for AIDS alone, at least half of which is attributable to homosexual males).

Third, males who form homosexual partnerships (or ‘marriages') are more apt to acquire blood-borne germs and infectious agents than those who do not form such partnerships. They thus endanger themselves and those with whom they interact, including medical personnel who treat them and those whom these homosexual practitioners serve as food handlers, surgeons, or in other intimate capacities.

According such relationships the same status as a vital relationship — marriage — turns social policy into an agent of weakening. Such an equivalence even works to destroy society.

Bruce Steele, editor of The Advocate , the leading homosexual rights magazine, reveals the extent to which society will have to be changed to accommodate members of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual coalition if gay marriage is condoned. In his first editorial of the new year Steele says:

“Forget about moral decay and Leviticus and AIDS and ‘natural order' and the ick factor, those are just excuses. The right's real argument against same-sex civil marriage comes down to this: If gays get marriage, being straight will no longer get you special rights. Homosexuality will at last be as normal as heterosexuality.” (p. 19, 1/20/04)

Steele is quite correct. Marriage can only be conferred upon homosexual relationships if society is willing to ignore the many harms associated with homosexual activity and the many benefits of married parenthood, in favor of making everyone ‘feel good about their sexual choices' irrespective of their effects on either the individual or society.

Across the western world, including the United States, marriage is in trouble. More and more children are being born outside its protective confines, and more and more children have to adjust to the shattering of its protection via divorce. It would be no exaggeration to say that in its present state, if marriage has to share its glory with a destructive inferior, it might be dealt a blow from which it would never recover.

In light of this problem, prominent conservatives have proposed that a ‘marriage amendment' be added to the U.S. Constitution to solve the onslaught of gay marriage.

FRI believes that un-elected activist judges are the fundamental political problem — not just with regard to marriage, but also with regard to abortion, anti-sodomy laws, and a host of other social issues.

As such, FRI would support suspending the custom of deferring to the courts' opinions regarding social matters until the will of the majority of the citizenry can be expressed. FRI believes this would best be accomplished by requiring the election and re-election of all Supreme Court and Appeals Court justices on a regular basis. An argument could be made for any term of office not exceeding 6 years. If this requires a Constitutional Amendment, then FRI believes such an amendment to the Constitution should be attempted. If judges are elected and have to face the people for their tenure on a regular basis, the citizenry will be apt to ‘keep justices in line with the popular will.'

If conservatives should decide that a Constitutional Amendment requiring the election of justices is not politically feasible at this time, but think that a Marriage Amendment is feasible, FRI is concerned that the proposed Amendment preserve the institution of marriage.

Two Different Amendments

Two wordings for the Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA] have been suggested to this end. The first version has been proposed in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

This language, if placed in the Constitution, would do what Proposition 22 did in California in 2000. Indeed, much the same coalition backed Proposition 22 as backs the Musgrave wording.

Specifically, it appears likely that the second sentence of the Musgrave version will stop courts from imposing civil unions on the states. But under this wording, state legislatures could still enact civil unions — marriage in everything but name. That is what happened in California immediately after the passage of Proposition 22. And that can be expected to happen in many states immediately after the passage of this language being put into the Constitution. Indeed, Musgrave and her supporters argue that they have no objection to the possibility of this outcome.

As such, ‘marriage' is saved in name, but not in substance. But why and from what logic? If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then why deny those who engage in it the right to ‘marry?'

The passage of any amendment to the Constitution is a very difficult matter. Enormous resources will have to be raised and expended to even have a chance of passing the Musgrave Amendment. And the institution of marriage will not be reserved for a man and a woman under the Musgrave wording, only the name ‘marriage' will be preserved.

FRI will NOT support such a waste of time and resources.

Michael Farris, Constitutional scholar and head of the Home School Legal Defense Association , has proposed another wording for a federal marriage amendment:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.”

While FRI believes the root political problem is the “un-elected activist judiciary” and that the Farris wording does not address this root, we would support this wording if an attempt is made to amend the Constitution with respect to marriage.

Conservatives MUST be honest about what we are doing and why. Homosexuality is grossly inferior to married heterosexuality. The benefits and legal incidents of marriage do intentionally discriminate against the unmarried, as well they should. As noted above, homosexual activity contributes nothing to society, and is, in fact, a negative influence on the public health and social order.

If that ‘hurts people's feelings,' so be it. That is the truth. And only the truth has any chance of winning this battle over the long term.

An Alternative Strategy

There is an alternative to a federal Constitutional Amendment. Consider the following bill, one that could be passed by a simple majority of Congress, and which would also both protect marriage and show clearly where conservatives stand when it comes to this issue:

If Republicans are indeed serious about protecting the institution of marriage, there should be no reason why a majority of the Republican-controlled Congress would not be able to pass such a bill, nor any reason for President Bush not to sign it into law. In this election year, and with marriage controversies swirling across the country, it is politically feasible NOW, especially with a Republican President who, like his father, needs the support of conservatives through the election. Pressing forward such a bill would also put those Republicans who would rather dance around the issue on the spot this election cycle. It would not allow them to get away with posturing, saying they are in favor of protecting marriage, but realizing all along that the Constitutional process will take many years.