See the original of this article on the website of the New York Times at this link. I want to thank the New York Times for publishing this very important information.
For what is certainly the most comprehensive discussion of the argument against gay marriage from biology is an article on the subject in the scholarly journal “Philosophia Christi”, which can be found on my blog at this link. PLEASE READ!!!!
Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage
By RAY RIVERA and CHRISTINE STUART
By RAY RIVERA and CHRISTINE STUART
October 12, 2008
Patricia and Wesley Galloway could not have children of their own. Yet for them, the essence of marriage is rooted in procreation.
“It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family,” Mrs. Galloway, 60, told a legislative panel in Connecticut last year as it was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
The bill never went to a vote, but on Friday the Connecticut Supreme Court eliminated the need for a bill when it struck down the state’s civil union law and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The decision was cheered by gay couples who argued that civil unions, despite giving them the same rights as married couples, were something less than marriage. But it has caused consternation among opponents of gay marriage, many of whom, like the Galloways, say their objections are not based on religion or morality, but in nature.
The Galloways represent one side of a debate that is often charged by undercurrents of bigotry and religious belief. The court’s ruling on Friday went on at length about the history of discrimination against gay people.
While they are Christians, the Galloways say they refuse to use religion to defend their view of marriage because it just muddies things. And they insist they are accepting of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
By protecting heterosexual marriage, what “we’re trying to do is protect the foundation of society,” Mrs. Galloway, a volunteer worker from Trumbull, Conn., said in a telephone interview on Saturday.
“Everyone who disagrees is automatically labeled a right-wing bigot,” she said.
Her husband added, “How can you be a bigot when you’re looking out for society as a whole?”
Connecticut joined California and Massachusetts as the only states to legalize gay marriage, adding to the long-running debate over the definition of marriage and who should be entitled to it. On one side are people who believe that marriage is the sanctifying of love and commitment between two people, regardless of gender.
For others, like the Galloways, marriage encourages a long-term relationship between a man and a woman as a framework for caring for their children. In such a construct, in their view, the population is replenished, and children are raised responsibly and are less likely to be a social and financial burden on the state.
Justice Peter T. Zarella, who was in the minority in Friday’s 4-to-3 decision, suggested the same in his dissenting opinion.
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote, adding, “As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Both sides are armed with sociological studies: one set showing that children prosper better with a mother and father; the other showing that children of same-sex parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted. Connecticut began allowing gay couples to adopt eight years ago.
For the Galloways, the notion that same-sex couples should not marry because they cannot have children is complicated by their own story. They married nearly 17 years ago, and tried to have children. When they couldn’t conceive, they became foster parents in the hope of adopting.
“The fact that we as a couple married later in life and tried to have children of our own, but were unable, we probably value children more than most people who didn’t have to spend as much time thinking about it,” said Mr. Galloway, 48, a certified public accountant. He said that all that reflection, in addition to parenting classes they have taken, had only reinforced their belief in traditional marriage, and that children are better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father.
Mr. Galloway, whose father died when he was 3, said being raised solely by women — his mother and his aunts — hindered his development and altered his sense of self-worth.
“I didn’t know how I was supposed to behave as a man because I didn’t have that interaction,” he said. He said he still had difficulty developing friendships with most men.
The notion that gender roles are unimportant in raising children is “bunk,” added Mrs. Galloway. “It is not an accident that it takes a man and a woman coming together to create a child,” she said.
On the other hand, Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a group that supports gay marriage, says numerous studies show there is no difference in the way children develop mentally and physically in same-sex households. “It’s the quality of parenting, not the gender of the parents,” she said.
For now, Friday’s decision has set off a renewed push for a constitutional convention that could start the process for outlawing gay marriage through a referendum. The state’s Roman Catholic bishops said in a statement after the ruling that they would be “calling on the Catholic people of our state to vote ‘Yes’ ” on a Nov. 4 ballot initiative to establish a convention.
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a group set up expressly to fight the movement toward gay marriage, said the decision could also spur action to pass constitutional amendments in California, Florida and Arizona that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
“I think everyone that feels outraged by this Supreme Court decision is going to take renewed energy that we have to rein in the courts,” Ms. Gallagher said.