“I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.” —Arnold Schwarzenegger
Roughly Sixty days out from national elections means people are beginning to take notice of what the politicians are saying about a whole host of issues fiscal and social. Chief among issues is the hot button of gay marriage. Presently, if one is conservative and even mentions it, labels of bigotry and homophobia fly left and right. So why the gay marriage report card? Simply because it is a political issue and like any other political issue, where rivers of cash and political capital flow, the net result of activism should have some standard of measure.
Thirteen states have legislatively accommodated same sex couples, thus, the notion (or suggestion) might follow for some that the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transsexual (LGBT) community is a sizable constituency and the concepts, attitudes and conventions of Gay Marriage are catching on. But are they really gaining steam? Are more people really accepting Gay marriage on par with traditional marriage? Or are they being bullied into it?
Gay marriage is current law in eight states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington and Maryland, (and additionally, The District of Columbia) while thirty-one states maintain constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman.
Five States have as law, civil unions: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. (Other sources cite six, but Vermont now has Gay Marriage, so it is excluded). We see, however, that the Gay community cares little for civil unions. Take Sherry Corbin, for example, chair of Vermont Freedom to Marry, asserted in 2004 that, “civil unions represent ‘separate status unequal to marriage or, ‘marriage apartheid’ and propones the civil rights doctrine of ,’separate but equal.'” A clear example of how the GLBT community has hijacked the civil rights movement in its’ rhetoric.
So what of Gay Marriage? has it worked well? is opposition to gay marriage really much ado about nothing as its’ supporters and advocates assert, while wagging a finger at us?
Gay Marriage legislation is new legislation. Gay marriage laws are only 2.8 years old, on average (the Bay state and Maryland were excluded. Massachusetts is excluded because its law is eight years old and Maryland’s has not yet taken effect.) The newness of the laws do not give us a full impact of the social and economic fall-out arising from Gay Marriage. One interesting morsel in Massachusetts is the dubious claim by Same-sex marriage advocates that divorce rates in the Bay State have actually dropped since 2004. So the newness of the legislation also lends itself to charlatanry.
But to give us some perspective on Gay Marriage by the numbers, let us look at the Bay State, because Gay Marriage has an eight-year track record. And the alternatives are limited anyway for lack of the other states with any track record in this progressive endeavor. The bay state and leftist progressivism are synonymous so it will serve as our thumbnail view of how well same-sex marriage popularity…or lack thereof.
In 2004, Massachusetts saw about 6,100 gay marriages in that first year; Nearly equal to all the gay marriages performed statewide in the years since. The Bay State population is about 6,500,000, in 2011 numbers — Summarily .2% (yes, that is .002 of the population )of the total population (assuming 12,200 people) sought gay marriage or 1.6% over an eight-year period.
2005, 2006, 2007 and the first nine months of 2008, show there were 6,236 gay weddings, according to statistics from the Bay State Department of Public Health. Moreover, excepting a few towns and cities, notably Northampton, most of the commonwealth’s 351 communities have recorded same-sex marriages in the single digits since the first year the courts foisted it upon the masses.
And do anticipate the activists arguing this premise with you because some municipalities have stopped making any distinction between same sex and traditional marriage in the licensing statistics. Pretty shrewd of those liberals…because then we are suppose to accept whatever numbers are thrown at us as, “the way it is.”
Now, consider all of the fundraising…the money, political capital, and face time in the social public arena given to advocacy for Gay Marriage. We see these themes in popular television shows. Movie and TV stars make bold statements lauding the merits of same sex marriage, while preaching and proselytizing virtues of tolerance and respect.
Do not dare to disagree lest one be labelled a bigot or Homophobe. On this issue, we see politicians getting squishy and cowardly, running away from the issue, ducking, dodging or pandering, so as not to draw the ire of the GLBT community and its well-heeled big-mouths.
In March the New York Times’ Adam Nagoury and Brooks Barnes took notice that the, Gay Marriage Effort Attracts a Novel Group of Donors, dropping names of the Hollywood elite like Rob “Meathead” Reiner, Music Mogul David Geffen, looking for three million dollars to counter California’s Proposition 8. Geffen wrote a check for $1.5 Million.
So I merely ask the question…for all the money, pandering, activism, persecution of those who refuse the Kool-Aid, has the effects of this campaign taken hold and gained traction? While Gay activists argue they have, the facts and numbers belie that very notion.
Many Americans still regard the notion that emergent social engineering of marriage as a union of any two persons, is still a departure from the natural and traditional view of man and woman marriage. Marriage, consisting of one man and one woman, predates government intervention and is synonymous with a society of free and responsible individuals, governed by a constitutionally limited state. This is self-evident in legislative effects versus end-runs around lawmakers by judicial activist courts.
The loud and ever vociferous, ubiquitous same sex advocates have to be mean. Mean is the only way they make inroads in their endeavors: fear, intimidation and bullying. Using the courts to make end-runs around legislatures; Those who disagree are bigots, homophobes and intolerant. Reality: The figures seem to show the movement is a mere paper tiger.