In a letter last week (Oct. 20, 2012) a writer gave his views as to why the vote on this amendment should be no. I think the views he shared are a very common sentiment and one that is reiterated in most of the columns that I know advocating this stand.
It is based on a certain sympathy for those in the homosexual community and on some personal experience with homosexual individuals and couples. I too can identify with that in the homosexuals and couples that I know. They are very kind, considerate and thoughtful people. Some claim that a family's love matters more than its form. One article I read held that children are more likely to thrive when they are in a stable family with loving parents, homosexual parents implied.
I came across a study by a University of Texas scholar, Mark Regnerus, which came out earlier this year that caused quite a stir because of its 'political incorrectness'. It was a very large random study of American adults ages 18-39 that focused on parents' relationship behavior. To quote Professor Regnerus' findings: "Young adult children of men and women who have had same-sex relationships appear more likely to have experienced problems and in some cases continue to struggle, than those whose biological parents were and are still married... They report a variety of challenges. Most of them have seen (non-parent) adults coming and going. Among other things they are more apt to report financial and employment difficulties, to finish less schooling, feel more ambivalent about their family experiences while growing up, have more run-ins with the law, and report more sexual partners and greater victimization than those children from biologically intact stable marriages."
This is a moral issue; a foundational moral issue for our society. How are we to order our society? Should it be on the basis of trends, of personal preferences, of sympathetic concern for individuals and so forth? Or should it be on more traditional principles, on what is best for our general society? There must be boundaries in any ordered society. It cannot be that every arrangement is acceptable. If the boundaries of marriage are obliterated then what? Are all things permissible?
Some wonder why a Constitutional Amendment? States that have DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) laws have seen that overturned, as was done in New York last week. In addition the Minnesota legislature tried to pass Legislation to protect marriage but it was vetoed by the Governor. That's how the Marriage Amendment came to be passed on to 'We the people.'
I came across a quote by Elton John who with his partner is raising a little boy conceived with a surrogate mother: "It's going to be heartbreaking for him to grow up and realize he hasn't got a mummy."
Vote yes on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.
J. Roald Fuglestad, MD