Like Moishe the Beadle
“They called him
Moishe the Beadle . . . .”
With those word, Elie
Wiesel begins Night, the powerful autobiographical account of how he, his
family, and their entire Jewish community went from living freely in the small
Hungarian town of Sighet, to incarceration, suffering, and death in terrible
Nazi concentration camps during World War II. One of the Jews in the village
knew of the imminent danger and tried to warn his neighbors. That man was Moishe
the Beadle. In tribute to him, the Nobel-prize-honored Wiesel records Moishe’s
name in the first line of his book, as the first of all persons he mentions.
Moishe the Beadle and
the other foreign Jews who lived in Sighet had been arrested and deported in
crammed cattle trucks, but months later Moishe secretly returned to the village
with a fantastic tale of how the Gestapo had stopped the trucks in a distant
forest, made the Jews dig their own graves, and shot them all, including Moishe
who miraculously had survived. Wiesel remembers:
Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish house to
the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young girl who lay dying for
three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who begged to die before his sons were
. . . But people not only refused to believe his tales, they refused
to listen. . . .
As for Moishe, he wept and pleaded:
Jews, listen to me! That’s all I ask of you. No money. No pity.
Just listen to me!” he kept shouting in synagogue, between the prayer at dusk
and the evening prayer.
Even I [Wiesel admits] did not believe him.
As Moishe had warned,
the Jews in the peaceful village of Sighet were eventually rounded up, forced to
live in a ghetto,
then transported to concentration camps, where some were selected for immediate
extermination, and others were brutally worked to death. Few survived.
As a Family Law
professor concerned about the dangers of legalizing same-sex marriage, I
sometimes feel like Moishe the Beadle. During the past ten years I have spoken,
debated, or lectured at more than 20 American law schools about same-sex
marriage. I always begin my presentations by asking the audience, mostly law
students, where they stand on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. Over
ten years, the audience responses have changed. While some students today
express opposition to same-sex marriage, at most American law schools, the
number of students favoring legalization of same-sex marriage now is much larger
than the number opposing it.
For example, I
participated in a panel discussion last October at a respected university’s law
school in New York City. It is sponsored by a prominent church. Yet, over 90%
of the audience (mostly students) raised their hands in support of legalizing
same-sex marriage; while less than five percent (5%) of the audience raised
their hands as opposing same-sex marriage.
I do not blame those
young law students, for they are bombarded relentlessly by their professors,
peers, and the popular media with propaganda that legalizing same-sex marriage
is fair, egalitarian, just, and harmless. If anyone says children, families and
society will be hurt, they are treated like Moishe the Beadle was treated –
brushed aside, ignored, or ridiculed.
There is a Global
Movement to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
There is a global
movement to legalize same-sex marriage and other marriage-equivalent domestic
relations. As Appendix 1 shows, as late as 1985, no nation on earth
permitted same-sex couples to marry or had created marriage-equivalent legal
unions for them. In fact, in the entire history of the world, no country had
ever before allowed same-sex marriage. When the new millennium dawned in 2000,
same-sex marriage was not legal in any nation on earth, and domestic
partnerships were recognized in only one nation. Today, however, five nations have redefined
marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry. Fifteen nations (including two
with same-sex marriage) have created same-sex “marriage-lite” giving
marriage-equivalent legal status and most or all of the marital benefits to
registered same-sex couples. Appendix 2 shows the current legal status
of marriage as the union of a man and a woman the United States and the World.
Marriage Movement Threatens the Institution of Marriage, Children, and Families
Public Interest in the Social Institution of Conjugal Marriage
Helping people to see
that legalizing same-sex marriage or marriage-equivalent domestic relationships
is an attack on marriage is not easy. The harm it causes is not like a broken
bone sticking through the skin or blood pouring from a severed artery. It is
more gradual and subtle. It is like the dangers of smoking – the damage is not
obvious at first, and by the time people realize that smoking is harmful to
them, irreversible damage has often been done (they may have cancer, emphesema,
heart attacks, or strokes).
It is useful to begin
by explaining that marriage is not merely a private matter, because there are so
many important public, social consequences. It is a public institution,
a public status, with public benefits.
Marriage is carefully defined and regulated by the law because the public has a
huge interest in protecting this basic social institution. People are
vulnerable in marriages, and when marriages fail, society must pick up the
pieces and the public incurs social costs such as for increased mental health
treatment, increased medical services, increased juvenile delinquency, impaired
education, and reduced labor productivity.
How marriage is
defined sends signals to and reflects common understandings about the
expectations of the relationship. Keeping those signals clear is critical to
protect the vulnerable, including children, adults who invest a large part of
their lives in families, and persons who depend on the care given by families.
marriage will drain marriage of the social meaning it now has. Marriage links
not only men with women, but parents with children. Legalizing same-sex
marriage obscures that linkage, and weakens the message connecting marriage with
spousal and parental responsibility. This is why former California Governor Pete
Wilson said: “Government policy ought not to discourage marriage by offering a
substitute relationship that demands much less and provides much less than is
needed by children and ultimately much less than is needed by society.”
Marriage is more than
a mere “word” or “piece of paper.”
It is the oldest social institution in the world; it is literally a pre-legal,
pre-state institution. Thus, merely calling the union of two men or two women
a marriage does not make it so. It is like the story attributed to Abraham
Lincoln: he is said to have once asked how many legs a dog would have if you
counted a tail as a leg. To the response "five legs," Lincoln said, "No;
calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
If same-sex marriage
is legalized on the principle of personal choice, there is no principled basis
to deny those who want to call incestuous relationships “marriages,” or
polygamous relationshps marriages, or polyamorous unions “marriages.”
Marriage involves the complementary, conjugal union of a man and a woman. As
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a famous decision: “Physical
differences between men and women. . . are enduring: ‘The two sexes are not
fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a
community composed of both.’”
establishes the moral core of the family and the moral baseline and standards
for society in many ways. “Marriage is a society's cultural infrastructure . .
In marriage and family, the individual acquires his core kinshp identity.
Without a solid family identity, many persons struggle and some turn to gangs,
and extremist movements as a substitute for family identity.
In conjugal marriage and the marital family most persons learn the most poignant
lessons about how to live in meaningful relationships.
Marriage is not only the most critical bridge and bonding connection in
society, it is the instrument of the most important moral transformation of
individuals. Marriage connects us as individuals from strangers into kin, from
men and women into husbands and wives, from persons of separate generations into
cultivates a morality of love and sacrifice. In conjugal marriage we learn
through practice to subordinate self-interest to service, to sacrifice for the
welfare of others, how to nurture, give, and express love, how to forgive and be
one with another (who at times seems so different, even hostile, to our
interests, needs and goals). And societies for ages have channeled sexual
relations into conjugal marriage, because married couples enjoy the most
and most socially-beneficial sexual relations.
relationships differ in profound ways in all of these critical aspects.
B. What’s the Harm?
who advocate legalizing same-sex marriage argue that “the sky did not fall in
The Netherlands or Canada or Massachusetts when they legalized same–sex
marriage” a few years ago. This is an attempt to switch the burden of proof
about harm to those who defend marriage rather than those who are proposing a
radical change. This argument diverts attention; the enduring harms of same-sex
marriage become evident over decades, not overnight. It will take as long to
clearly document the detrimental consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage,
just at it took to document clearly the harm of unilateral, no-fault divorce on
demand which many American states adopted 30-35 years ago.
Already we can identify some harms. At this early stage, as often in social
science research, the evidence of harm is correlational not causational. One of
the best summaries of such evidence comes in a book published recently by David
Blankenhorn, entitled The Future of Marriage.
Using a poll of data reporting interviews with 50,000 adults in 35 nations,
Blankenhorn created four categories of countries according to their laws
regarding same-sex unions and analyzed attitudes towards marriage. He reports:
The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest
in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil
unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only
regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better
still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay
marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.
without gay marriage, people are twice to say married people are happier than in
nations with gay marriage, and nearly twice as likely to say that people with
children ought to marry.
Performing a similar analysis on data from the World Values Survey produced
similar results. These two data pools show a stair-step correlation: support
for marriage is weakest in nations that have legalized same-sex marriage,
stronger in nations that have legalized marriage-equivalent civil unions or
partnerships, stronger again in nations that have only a few jurisdictions where
same-sex unions are is legalized, and strongest by far in nations that do not
recognize either same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will change the core meaning and moral message of
the social institution of marriage through “the transformative power of
inclusion.” When same-sex marriage is legalized, the moral qualities and
characteristics of homosexual relations and lifestyles will become part of, and
will have some transformative effect upon the qualities and characteristics of
the institution of conjugal marriage. That modification of marriage to make it
more like gay-relations will cause serious harm to society, families, and
and behavioral expectations of gays and lebsians differ markedly from married
men and women. For example, promiscuity, infidelity, multiple sexual partners,
and dangerous sexual practices are the behavioral norms among gay couples (and
also, to a lesser extent, lesbian couples), rather than monogamy and sexual
self-control which are the norms fostered by and nurtured in heterosexual
For example, a
study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS, reported
on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population.
- 86% of new HIV/AIDS
infections in gay men were in men who had steady partners.
- Gay men with steady
partners engage in more risky sexual behaviors than gays without steady
- Gay men with steady
partners had 8 other sex partners (“casual partners”) per year, on average.
- The average
duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years.
Bell and Weinberg reported that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex
with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex
A more recent study of 2,583 older sexually active gay men reported that “the
modal range for number of sexual partners ever . . . was 101-500,” while 10.2
percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners, and another 10.2
percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand sexual
partners in their lifetime.
Kirk and Madsen reported in their that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay
males, given enough time, approaches 100%. . . . Many gay lovers, bowing to the
inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of
ground rules as there are couples”
published in 2006, of same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden,
noted that significant problems with stability of the relationship, and
significantly higher rates of breakup. The divorce-risk levels were about 50%
higher for registered gay men partnerships than for comparable heterosexual
couples, and controlling for variables, the risk of divorce was twice as high
for lesbian couples as it was for gay men couples.
Another study of Swedish registered partnerships found that gay male couples
were fifty percent more likely to divorce than married heterosexual couples,
while lesbian couples were over 150 percent more likely to divorce than
Controlling for variables, gay couples were 35 percent and lesbian couples 200
percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
marital equivalent status and benefits to homosexual couples does not change
their behavior significantly. A study of Civil Unions in Vermont reported that
gay men both in and not in civil unions had nearly four times the rate of
infidelity (approximately 60%) as married heterosexual men (15.2%), and the
difference in infidelity rates between gay men in a civil union and those not in
a civil union was less than three percent (2.8%).
Likewise, lesbian couples both in and not in civil unions had much higher rates
of meaningful extra-relationship affairs than women in heterosexual marriages of
having had a (4.7% and 3.0% compared to 0.0%).
Legal marriage-like status did not significantly reduce lesbi-gay sexual
expectation of fidelity that came with the relationship commitment was
drastically different for conjugally married men and women that it was for gays
and lesbians in formal and non-registered same-sex relationships. About 50% more
lesbians both in and not in Civil Unions in Vermont had decided that
extra-relationship sex was acceptable than married women, and for gay men both
in civil unions and not in civil unions it was from 1250% to 1400% higher than
for men in conjugal marriages (40.3% and 49.5% compared to 3.5%).
Of course, gay
male homosexual sex is the primary means of transmission of AIDS disease in the
United States and a dominant transmission method worldwide.
AIDS is estimated to have killed over 25 million people worldwide, “making it
one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history,”
and fulfilling the ominous prediction made in 1987 by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, Otis R. Bowen, that the disease could make earlier
epidemics, such as bubonic plague in Europe, smallpox, and typhoid, “pale in
AIDS is not the only sexually transmitted disease or public health problem with
extremely disproportionate incidence in homosexual men. Doctors who treat
homosexual men for diseases now look for at least fifteen common
sexually related afflictions besides HIV/AIDS, that are not common in
redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples will have a profound
impact upon sexual morality and public health in society. Sexual standards in
marriage will change as homosexual relations will be instantly normalized and
equated with marital relations.
Same-sex marriage undermines parenting and child-rearing. Every child deserves
to be raised by his or her mother and father. While unwed birth and divorce
impair that right for some children of conjugal unions, same-sex marriage
guarantees that all children who are born during or raised in such
unions will be deprived totally of this fundamental moral right. Further, the
linkage between responsible procreation and parenting is weakened when marriage
is redefined to allow gay unions that absolutely are incapable of procreation.
Also, the co-parenting message of marriage is weakened when marriage is
redefined to include relations among same-sex couples that are designed for
sexual pleasure and lack the ability to co-parent.
marriage will instantly transform the meaning of marriage, spouse, husband,
wife, parent, child and by that redefinition will profoundly influence the
meaning of public education, school curriculum, civil rights, family,
inheritance, intimacy, relations, public behavior, privacy, disclosures,
security, accommodation, filings, custody, guardianship, visitation, reasonable
conduct, medical treatment, preferences, privileges, rights, duties, etc.
Thus, the attempt
to legalize same-sex marriage or give equivalent legal status and benefits to
same-sex couples constitutes a very real and dangerous attack upon the
institution of conjugal marriage. Redefining marriage to include homosexual
couples will alter the behavioral characteristics, social expectations, and
moral message of our most basic social institution.
C. Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Endanger Civil Rights
Legalizing same-sex marriage will undermine the civil rights
of those who do not approve of or who oppose same-sex marriage. Gay marriage
supporters argue SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1that it is a basic right or matter
of equality, and that those who oppose same-sex marriage, like those who oppose
inter-racial marriage, are simply bigots.
If same-sex marriage becomes law, that principle becomes the law. Opposition to
same-sex marriage may be deemed “invidious discrimination” and punished. Public
schools, teachers, administrators, adoption agencies, psychologists, social
workers, marriage counselors, fertility experts, ART clinics,
religiously-affiliated schools, and social-service agencies and workers who do
not support same-sex marriage will be branded “bigots.” They will face civil
liability, job discrimination, and be forced to conform or lose government
contracts, government employment, government licensing, and tax and other
benefits. The persecutions of parents, teachers, other public employees, and
church-affiliated adoption agencies in Massachusetts in just three years since
same-sex marriage was legalized there shows the kind of harms that can be
one of the most important concerns of religion. It is also a critical element
in hundreds of civil laws. Changing the core definition of marriage in the law
will lead to clashes between law and religion. Religious organizations may be
compelled to provide support for and service for same-sex married couples or be
punished for not doing so. Civil liability or exclusion from government benefits
may be imposed on religions and religious believers that decline to accommodate
kitchens, to homeless shelters, to hospitals, to social services religious
organizations provide a variety of services to the public and participate in
many public service programs that may be shut down or censored if they do not
accommodate same-sex marriage.
Religious universities have been forced to provide housing to gay and lesbian
couples in violation of core religious principles,
and shelters may be similarly treated.
In Massachusetts since same-sex marriage has been legalized Boston Catholic
Charities, which provided adoption services to Catholic families for a century
had to shut down because a law required all adoption agencies to place children
with gays and lesbians, in violation of the strong moral principles of the
Now the UK has adopted the same kind of law threatening Catholic adoption
services in that nation.
In California, public non-discrimination laws were used to force a Protestant
adoption agency to provide adoption services to lesbian couples, and a suit is pending against a clinic whose Catholic doctor declined
assisted reproduction services to a lesbian.
The Catholic Church’s Georgetown University was required to allow the Gay Rights
Coalition and their programs to promote homosexual lifestyle with the same
access to facilities and the same university support, resources and services as
it provides to its own church-doctrine-supporting groups.
In California, which has given same-sex partnerships the same rights as
marriage, Catholic Charities was required to violate its own core religious
principles and provide contraceptives in health insurance coverage, or to
provide no benefits at all.
In Canada, the
Knights of Columbus was held liable and forced to pay damages by the British
Columbia Human Rights Commission after it cancelled (very politely, promptly)
rental of its hall for a marriage celebration, when it learned that it was for a
In the United States, the Boy Scouts who require their members to be “morally
straight” have been denied privileges and the use of public facilities and
Since hospital are regulated public institutions, church-owned hospitals and
teaching clinics may be forced to offer procedures (like sex-change) and
teaching (about gay lifestyle) that violate church doctrines. In the United
States, this has occurred in the abortion context, so we must expect it to occur
with same-sex marriage, also.
schools are vulnerable. Religious schools that refuse to approve, subsidize,
perform or endorse SSM could be lose access to public facilities, programs, and
tax exemption (even be prosecuted).
In Massachusetts since same-sex marriage has been legalized there already have
been numerous controversies about curriculum, assemblies, classes, clubs, and
parents’ rights to protect their children from exposure to gay propoganda.
In British Columbia, Canada, the government accrediting agency denied
accreditation to Trinity Western University, sponsored by the Evangelical Free
Church of Canada, for its Teacher Training Program because the school requires
students to sign an honor code manifesting their belief in Bible verses that
condemn homosexual behavior as immoral, and the provincial supreme court
rights have already been abused. In Sweden Pentacostal Pastor Ake Green in
Sweden was prosecuted, initially convicted, and forced through years of
litigation for preaching from the Bible against homosexual relations.
Similar cases have been reported in Canada and England.
In Ireland, during public debate over legalizing same-sex unions, the Irish
Council for Civil Liberties warned that Catholic Bishops and clergy who
distributed a Vatican publication opposing homosexual relations could be
prosecuted for violating a hate speech act.
Opportunity for a Global Marriage Renaissance
Movement to Protect the Institution of Marriage
I have described some
of the serious dangers of the growing movement to legalize same-sex marriage and
equivalent relations in the world today. However, the future is not bleak. For
simultaneously, we are seeing signs of a revival of interest in protecting
marriage. We can see the early stages of what may become a renaissance of the
institution of conjugal marriage and marital families. Time and space do not
prevent a full development of the evidence of this promising development, but
five examples may suffice to illustrate the point.
First, most young
people today yearn to have a good marriage, and a marital family. More young
people than ever before want to have jobs and lifestyles that will allow them to
spend time with, enjoying, their families. Young people are worried about
marital instability, and many approach marriage more seriously, with a greater
commitment to make their marriage succeed than in prior generations.
Second, there even
are some indications of greater interest in conjugal marriages in some nations
where same-sex marriage has been legalized.
Perhaps one short-term reaction to the legalization of same-sex marriage is the
shock effect produces a temporary appreciation of the value of the institution
of conjugal marriage. The public awakening caused by the legalization of
same-sex marriage provides a golden short-term opportunity for a
counter-movement to develop.
Third, many nations
in the world clearly reject same-sex marriage. While the regulation of marriage
is normally not a concern of Constitution drafters, the national constitutions
of thirty-two nations already contain explicit provisions that clearly define
marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as Appendix 3 shows. In the USA,
statutes ban same-sex marriage in 44 states, and constitutional amendments
forbid same-sex marriage in (27) most of the states.
Fourth, the emerging
influence of the southern hemisphere in world affairs holds some potential to
revitalize conjugal marriage. For example, the strong reaction of the African
(and other) churches in the Anglican communion has had some positive impact to
curtail the radical policies about same-sex unions promoted by branches of that
Church in affluent North America and Western Europe.
Likewise, all major branches of Islam forbid same-sex marriage as do the all the
nations (nearly sixty nations) where those people have dominant political
incorporation into the European Union of the new democracies of central and
eastern Europe is bringing into the “Old Europe” some promising values of the
“New Europe,” including traditional views about marriage and families. For
example, Eurostat 2005 shows that the marriage rate is higher in the “New
Europe” than in the “Old Europe”.
Also, the practice of delaying marriage in Central and Eastern Europe is less
pronounced where, in 2000, the median age of marriage was approximately 24 years
The status of same-sex marriage and marriage-equivalent relations in eleven
nations of Central and Eastern Europe is revealing. In none is same-sex
marriage allowed; in only two (Slovenia and Germany) are same-sex unions given
status comparable to marriage; in only one of the eleven (Germany, an “Old
Europe” nations) may gay and lesbian couples adopt children.
Five nations in Central and Eastern Europe have constitutions that explicitly
define marriage as the unions of a man and a woman.
The 2003 European Omnibus Survey (EOS) based on interviews with over 15,000
persons living in 30 European countries reported that 55% of persons from the
“Old Europe” nations opposed the authorization of adoption by homosexual
couples, while 76% of the population surveyed in the nations of “New Europe”
opposed legalization of gay adoptions.
Thus, there are signs
of a renaissance of marriage in the world. It is Spring in the seasons of the
world, and we have the opportunity to revitalize marriage if we will.
Conclusion: We Must
All Speak Up and Constantly Defend Marriage
of giving persuasive warnings is illustrated by Hurricane Katrina. In August,
2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of America leaving over 1,800 people
dead and billions of dollars of property damage in New Orleans and other
low-lying coastal areas.
As the hurricane hit, a new Physical Science 100 textbook was being printed for
use by students at Brigham Young University. One paragraph reads:
Much of the city of New Orleans was built on the lowest part of the
Mississippi Flood Plain right where this great river empties into the Gulf of
Mexico. Much of the city is actually several feet below sea level, while the
river flows through it in a channel 10 to 15 feet above sea level. This is a
disaster waiting to happen. At some point in the future the system of levees
and dikes that protect New Orleans will be unable to hold back the pressures of
a particularly large springtime flow or perhaps a wave surge caused by a
hurricane will overwhelm the city=s
dikes. Whatever the natural event, if New Orleans river controls are overcome
an enormous amount of damage and even some loss of life will occur.
The author of that section told
me that his description of a Adisaster
waiting to happen@ at
New Orleans was not uncommon. Geologists had been warning of the dangers for
many years. Sadly, like Moishe the Beadle, the warnings were ignored by
governments leaders in New Orleans, in Louisiana, in the Army Corps of
Engineers, and in FEMA. The results were tragic.
One of our
responsibilities as parents, citizens, and especially scholars is to warn of
dangers, to find where the levees and dikes need to be fixed or raised, and warn
where possible floods and wave surges may threaten loss of things we value. We
value marriage. While some people think that same-sex marriage is quite
harmless, just the tide of individual liberty rising, I see it as a disaster in
the making, as one critical place where the levees need to reinforced.
Although Elie Wiesel
was one of Jews who refused to believe the warnings of Moishe the Beadle, yet he
remembered gratefully Moishe’s attempt to warn the people. In his Nobel Peace
Prize Acceptance Speech in 1986, Wiesel recalled his experience, and declared:
“I swore never to be silent . . . . We must take sides. Neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor . . . .”
We too must speak up and get involved.
In his book
Standing for Something, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressed it well when he wrote:
“We go to great lengths to preserve historical buildings and sites
in our cities. We need to apply the same fervor to preserving the most ancient
and sacred of institutions – the family.
What we desperately need today on all fronts . . . are leaders, men and
women who are willing to stand for something. We need people . . . who
are willing to stand up for decency, truth, integrity, morality, and law
and order . . . even when it is unpopular to do so – perhaps especially
when it is unpopular to do so.
. . . .
. . Never before, at least not in our generation, have the forces of evil been
so blatant, so brazen, so aggressive as they are at the present time. . . .
. . .
We are involved in an intense
battle. It is a battle between right and wrong,
. . . . [W]e desperately need men and women who, in their individual spheres of
influence, will stand for truth in a world of sophistry. . . . We need
moral men and women, people who stand on principle, to be involved in the
political process. . . .
. . . . The weight of
stance may be enough to tip the scales in the direction of truth and right.
Elie Wiesel ended his
Nobel speech stating: “There is so much to be done, there is so much that can
be done. One person – a Raoul Wallenberg, an Albert Schweitzer, a Martin Luther
King, Jr. – one person of integrity can make a difference, a different of life
I conclude on that
point, too. There is much to be done. The naďve young law students in America
and around the world will someday be the lawmakers and judges and leaders of
nations. Unless we persuade them now of the dangers of legalizing same-sex
marriage, then they will naively adopt laws and policies that will cause tragic
said, one person of integrity and commitment can make a huge difference in his
or her family, community, school, profession, or nation. We all can make a
difference on the issue of same-sex marriage. We can stand up and defend the
institution of marriage. The task we face is not for summer soldiers or weekend
warriors who are willing to work for a season, then quit. We must realize that
we have the opportunity to initiate a renaissance of marriage and the family,
and that will take decades, not days to accomplish. So we must enlist for the
long term. As Mormon Church President Gordon B, Hinckley wrote:
“We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year. But
with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation, and
accomplish wonders within two generations – a period of time that is not
very long in the history of humanity.
May all of us
speak up stand against legalizing same-sex marriage. May we all be as dedicated
in warning about the dangers of same-sex marriage as Moishe the Beadle was about
warning of the dangers facing his people, and may God grant that, over time, we
may witness a real renaissance of marriage.
Appendix 1: Global Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and
Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2007
Same-Sex Marriage-Eqivalent Unions/Partners
*The Netherlands has both SSM and SSDPs. South Africa has
both also; parties who take avantage of the Civil Union law can choose to call
their relationships marriages.
Appendix 2: Legal Status of Marriage As Union of Man and
Woman in the United States and the World
• Same-Sex Marriage Legal:
Five* Nations and One USA State
The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa*; (and MA)
• Same-Sex Unions
Equivalent to Marriage Legal in Thirteen Nations and 6 US states
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg,
Slovenia, Andorra, Switzerland, UK; New Zealand; (and CA, CN, NH. NJ, OR, VT).
• Same-Sex Unions Registry
& Some Benefits in At Least Nine Nations and 4 US states
least 9 More Nations (Israel, Hungary, Portugal, Croatia, Czech Republic, New
Zealand, Argentina, Columbia; (and HI, ME, WA, & DC)
Appendix 3: Constitutions
Defining Marriage As Union of Man and Woman in the USA and
• 137 Nations Have Constitutional Marriage Provisions (82)
and/or Family Provisions.
• Thirty-two (32) Nations with Constitutional Provisions
Explicitly or Implicitly Defining Marriage As Union of Man and Woman
Armenia (art. 32), Azerbaijan (art. 34), Belarus (art. 32),
Brazil (art. 226), Bulgaria (art. 46), Burkina Faso (art. 23), Cambodia (art.
45), China (art. 49), Columbia (art. 42), Cuba (art. 43), Ecuador (art. 33),
Eritrea (art. 22), Ethiopia (art. 34), Honduras (art. 112), Japan (art. 24),
Latvia (art. 110 - Dec. 2005), Lithuania (art. 31), Moldova (art. 48), Nicaragua
(art. 72), Mongolia (art. 16), Namibia (art. 14), Paraguay (arts. 49, 51, 52),
Peru (art. 5), Poland (art. 18), Somalia (art. 2.7), Suriname (art. 35), Tajiksistan (art. 33), Turkmenistan (art. 25), Uganda (art. 31), Ukraine (ark.
51), Venezuela (art. 77), Vietnam (art. 64).
Examples: Article 46 of the Constitution of Bulgaria
provides: “(1) Matrimony is a free union between a man and a woman. . .
.” Art. 51, Constitu. of Ukraine, provides: “Marriage is based on the free
consent of a woman and a man.”
• Same-Sex Marriage Banned by State Marriage Amendments
(SMAs) to U.S. State Constitutions in 27 states: AK, AL, AR, CO, GA, HI, ID,
KY, KS, LA MI, MS, MO, MN, NB, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VI, & WI
(average voter approval ~ 70%).
-Constitutional Mandate for SSDPs rejected: CO
-SMAs rejected by voters in one state: AZ
-Same-Sex Marriage Explicitly
Prohibited by Statutes in 44 US states (all except CN, MA, NJ, NM, NY, RI).
• Sodomy is Illegal in 70+ Nations and A Capital Offense
in 9 Nations: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, UAE, Yemen.
Sodomy Laws, Laws Around the World, last updated June 2, 2006, available at
http://sodomylaws.org/world/world.htm (last seen October 2, 2006) (listing nine
nations where sodomy is punishable by death); Elizabeth Kukura, Finding
Family: Considering the Recognition of Same-Sex Families in Human Rights Law and
the European Court of Human Rights, 13 Hum. Rts. Br. 17, 17-18 (Iss. No. 2,
Winter 2006); National Conference of State Legislatures, Same Sex Marriage
(Jan 2007), available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm .
.Clifford Arthur provided valuable research assistance in
the preparation of this paper.
.Elie Wiesel, Night 1 (1972, 1985, 2006).
.Id. at 7.
 “On the seventh day of Passover, the
curtain finally rose: the Germans arrested the leaders of the Jewish
moment on, everything happened very quickly. The race toward death had
Beadle came running to our house.
“’I warned you,’ he shouted. And
left without waiting for a response. Id. at 10.
 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
Domestic Partner Bill Vetoed in California, N.Y. TIMES, September 13,
1994, at A14.
See Lynn D. Wardle, Legal Claims for
Same-Sex Marriage: Efforts to Legitimate A Retreat from Marriage by
Redefining Marriage, 39 So. Tex. L. Rev. 735 (1998).
 Col. Alexander K. McClure, Lincoln=s
Yarns and Stories 323 (1980); see also J. Bartlett, The Shorter
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations 218(d) (1961).
 United States v. Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2276
(1996)(brackets in original; quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S.
187, 193 (1946)).
David W. Murray, Poor Suffering
Bastards: An Anthropologist Looks at Illegitimacy, Policy Rev.
(Spring, 1994) at 9. (“The history of human society shows that when
people stop marrying, their continuity as a culture is in jeopardy.”Id.).
 That is why historically and in twenty-first
century there has been such great concern about so many children being
born and raised out of wedlock. See Robert J. Stonebraker,
The Joy of Economics: Making Sense out of Life, Moral Decay,
Winthrop University, available online at
See Lynn D. Wardle, The Morality of Marriage, in : How
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children, Families and Society
(book manuscript on file with author).
See Bruce C. Hafen, Individualism
and Autonomy in Family Law: The Waning of Belonging, 1991 BYU L.
Rev. 1 (1991); Takeo Doi, The Anatomy of Dependence (John Bestor,
See, e.g., Linda J. Waite and Maggie
Gallagher, The Case for Marriage 47-52. 152=58. 162-65 (2000) (relations
of spouses healthier, less domestic violence, less victimization of many
Id.at 75-89 (Married couples generally
have more sex and enjoy it more, finding it physically satisfying and
emotionally satisfying than non-married couples.)
Id. at 165-68 (husbands and wives both
happier than singles; better mental health).
 David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (2007).
See also David Blankenhorn, Defining Marriage Down . . .,
Weekly Standard, April 2, 2007 (12:28) at
 Blankenhorn, Defining Marriage Down,
at *2. (Analyzing data from the International Social Science Programme).
Maria Xiridou, Ronald Geskus, et al., The
contribution of steady and casual partnerships to incidence of HIV
infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, 17 (7) AIDS 1029 (2 May
2003), available at
(seen February 20, 2007). The purpose of the study was to assess whether
provision of certain AIDS drugs had resulted in an increase of unsafe
sexual practices in the gay community in The Netherlands.
 Martin S. Bell & Alan P. Weinberg,
Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women 308-09 (1978).
 Paul Van de Ven, et al., A Comparative
Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, 34
Journal of Sex Research 354 (1997), cited in Dailey, supra note
__, at __.
Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen, After the
Ball 330 (1989). Likewise, Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female
marriages with same sex relationships and explains, “there is more
likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital
outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” Andrew
Sullivan, Virtually Normal 202 (1996), cited in IVC Statistics,
supra note __, at __.
Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack, Ane Sierstad &
Harald Weedon-Fekjaer, The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in
Norway and Sweden, 43 Demography 79, 89-90 (2006), available at
Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker, Same-Sex Unions and Divorce Risk: Data from Sweden, iMAPP Policy
Brief, May 3, 2004 copy in author’s possession.
Sondra E. Solomon, Esther D. Rothblum,
Kimberly F. Balsam, Money, housework, sex, and conflict: same-sex
couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual
married siblings, 52 Sex Roles ___ (May 2005).
Id. The authors said there was no
significant difference between lesbians and married heterosexual women
U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Public
Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS
Surveillance Report, Vol. 5, No. 2 (July 1993) at 14, Table 12
(Fifty-three percent of all AIDS cases reported through June of 1993
(166,023 cases) involved the single mode of exposure of men who have sex
with men. The second most common method of transmission was intravenous
drug use, which accounted for only 20% of the AIDS cases. Id.).
 AIDS Epidemic Update, December, 2003; World
Health Organization (WHO) Summary of HIV/AIDS Epidemic, December 2005.
Updates: AIDS Statistics, §3-8 at
Id. at 21; see also id., n.92).
 Lynn D. Wardle, “Multiply and Replenish”:
Considering Same-Sex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital
Procreation, 24 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 771 (2001).
See generally Maggie Gallagher, The
Senator Who Cried ‘Bigot,’ Real Clear Politics, June 7, 2006,
(seen April 4, 2007)..
See, e.g., Thomas J. Paprocki, Marriage, Same-Sex Relationships, and the Catholic Church,
U. Chi. L.J. 247 (2007) (describing incidents in California and
Massachusetts in which Catholic Social Services had been attacked or
excluded from the public square); Helen M. Alvare, The Moral
Reasoning of Family Law: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage, 38 Loy. U.
Chi. L.J. 349 (2007) (describing restriction of Catholic Church ability
to meet needs of its community because of restrictive gay rights laws);
Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston, Weekly Standard, May 15,
2006, at 20 (reporting that after a century of providing adoption
services, Catholic had been forced to close its adoption work because
Massachusetts had adopted a new rule requiring all agencies, including
church-affiliated agencies, to place children for adoption with gay and
lesbian adults seeking to adopt).
See generally Roger Severino (Legal
Counsel, The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty), Or for Poorer: How
Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty in What’s the Harm:
How Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children, Families and
Society (manuscript on file with author).
See e.g., Smith v. Fair Employment &
Housing Comm’n,(Cal 1996); Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights,(Alaska
1994); Levin v. Yeshiva University, (N.Y. 2001).
See Gay Issue Spurs Catholic Group to End
Adoptions, ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=1715489&page=1, 12 March 2006.
See George Jones, Church Loses Opt-Out
Fight Over Gay Adoptions, Telegraph.co.uk,
May 6, 2007.
See SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1Error! Main Document Only.Christopher Lisotta, Gay
foster parents win California ruling, at
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/03/04/3 (,adoption agency
must serve lesbians).
 Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical
Group, Inc., 2004 WL 2047111 (trial court order denying doctor’s
religious liberty defense), see also id., 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 20 (Cal.
App. 2005) (court says marital exemption does not apply to case); id.,
46 Cal.Rptr3d 605 (Cal. 2006) (review granted).
 Gay Rights Coalition of Georgetown University Law
Center v. Georgetown University, (D.C. Ct. App. 1987).
Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court,
See generally Lesbian Couple Wins $2,000
Nov. 29, 2005; B.C. Tribunal Awards Lesbian Couple Damages,
Nov. 30, 2005; Terry Vanderheyden, Knights of Columbus Forced to Pay
Damages to Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for “Wedding” Reception,
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html, Nov. 30, 2005.
See generally Heather Mac Donald, Boy
Scout Battle Pits Gay Activists vs. Minority Kids, Wall St. J., July
6, 2000; San Diego city campground lease, Berkeley, California berth,
exclusion from public fund-raising campaign, etc.); Peter Ferrara, The War on Boy Scouts: The ACLU Never Sleeps, The Weekly Standard,
Vol. 009, Issue 03, available at
http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/War_on_Scouts.pdf, Sep. 29, 2003;
Supreme Court Rejects Boy Scouts’ Appeal, MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15289493/ , Oct. 16, 2006.
See generally newspapers or other sources*
See generally Bob Jones University
 For example, in the Jacob Parker incident in
which a father protesting the reading of a gay propoganda book to his
son in a first-grade class was arrested, the child later beaten at the
school, etc. See generally http://www.massresistance.com/docs/parker/
 Trinity Wester University v. College of Teachers,
 1 S.C.R. 223, 2001 SCC 31.
See generally, The Becket Fund, Sweden
– Criminalizing Religious Speech – Ake Green,
See A. Scott Loveless, Children on the
Front Lines of an Ideological War, 22 St. Louis. Univ. Pub. L. Rev.
371, 391 n.63 (2003) (citing R. v. Hammond in Dorset and Owens v.
Saskatchewan,  SKQB 506 at
Legal warning to church on gay
stance, Irish Times, Aug. 2, 2003, at
 Even the movement to legalize alternative
relationships (whether nonmarital cohabitation or same-sex relations)
manifests, at one level, a strong reaction by young adults to the
instability, dysfunction, and painful failure of many of their own
parents’ marriages, and in the families of their childhood friends. See Wardle,
Legal Claims for Same-Sex Marriage, supra
N. Eskridge & Darren R. Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?
What We’ve Learned from the Evidence (2006).
.See The Widening Division in the Anglican Communion,
Christianity Today, May 5, 2007, at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/anglicans.html
.Muhammad M. Abu Layiah,
Islamic Policy on Marriage
at http://www.legacyleader.com/ln/article.asp?articleid=21 (“Gay
marriage is totally prohibited in Islam . . . .”). See generally
Ibrahim B. Syed, Same Sex Marriage and Marriage in Islam, at
Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc., http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_marriage_and_marriage_i.htm
.Id. (Table showing 2003 marriage rate of 4.76 in
EU-25, but 4.72 in EU-15).
supra note __, citing
Dimiter Philipov, Major Trends Affecting Families in Central and
Eastern Europe," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document,
Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the
Family (2003), p. 2. Archived at:
.See Lynn D. Wardle,
The Need for and Prospects
of a Second Renaissance – of Marriage, paper presented at Vienna
Colloquium on Marriage sponsored by the Doha International Institute for
Family Studies and Development (copy on file with author).
.See Appendix I,
infra (listing Bulgaria, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine).
.Gallup Europe, The European Omnibus Survey available at
<http://www.gallupeurope.com/history.htm> (seen September 10, 2003) (on
file with author).
See Louisianna Dep’t. of Health and
Hospitals, Hurricane Katrina, Deceased Reports, at
. (1,464 deaths from Louisianna, over 340 deaths in neighboring states).
 Jay Ward Moody, Julie Boerio-Goates, Bart
Kowallis, et al., Physical Science Foundations *469 (page proof August
2005, published January 2006).
.The Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech Delivered by
Elie Wiesel in Oslo on December 10, 1986 in Night, supra at
Hinckley, The Family, We Can Save Our Nation by Saving Our
Homes in Standing for
Something 143 (2000).
Hinckley, Standing for Something 167-68, 170-71, 172 (2000)
.Id. at 120.
Hinckley, The Family, We Can Save Our Nation by Saving Our
Homes in Standing for
Something 144-45 (2000).