Friday, May 19, 2006
Letter to the editor
This was published in our esteemed newspaper yesterday:
Voters should protect marriage
By KAREN JO GOUNAUD
Guest columnist
Guest columnist David R. Gillespie on April 21 addressed what is perhaps the most important issue of the Nov. 7 election: the constitutional definition of marriage in South Carolina.
The meaning of that institution from the beginning of time has been "one man, one woman." Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby has made considerable progress in recent years toward discounting that sacred definition. With the help of savvy marketing techniques, biased media, relentless legal manipulators and activist judges, the laws and culture have been radically changing. Consequently, more and more Americans now accept or excuse a virtual potpourri of sexual identities and behaviors that our nation once rejected and condemned.
Attacking traditional marriage has become the activists' most important effort in this culture war. Because of all the misleading, inaccurate claims the public has accepted, it has become imperative for South Carolina to protect itself from this aggression in a special way: by creating and adopting the South Carolina Marriage Amendment.
South Carolina citizens can best prepare for this historical voting opportunity through objective fact-finding and respectful discussion. One of the finest reports available is an article by author Frank Turek called "Protecting America's Immune System - A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage."
Mr. Turek warns against both homosexual marriage and civil unions. He calls traditional marriage "the national immune system that protects our civilization from destruction." Anyone preparing seriously for the Nov. 7 vote should read his full report.
Here are some of his major points and arguments:
"Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare." The majority of skilled, objective family analysts consider it the gold standard for raising children. It results in lower rates for poverty, suicide and crime while bringing better health conditions. It also lowers government welfare costs and makes men more focused and responsible. It provides women, especially mothers, with more security, improves the life span of both spouses and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate.
"Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare" by increasing health problems among those practicing homosexual sex, shortening the median life span by 20 years to 30 years, spreading disease to innocent people and costing Americans millions of dollars in higher medical insurance premiums.
Legalization of homosexual marriage also leads to more destructive attitudes toward traditional marriage and parenting. For example, in Norway, after a decade of legalized homosexual marriage, out of wedlock births have soared (to)... nearly 70 percent of all children. "When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples," says Turek, "marriage and child-bearing will just be considered incidental."
Closer to home, Massachusetts' homosexual marriages have a shorter history, but the results are already provocative. For example, concerned second-grade public school parents in Lexington were recently told that because of Massachusetts' legalization of homosexual marriage, children's gay advocacy books like King and King (where the prince marries another prince) are required classroom reading.
Even more disturbing, Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies (specializing) in finding good homes for hard-to-place kids, had to shut down because it could not in good conscience place kids with homosexual couples as it was now required to do for a state license. That requirement is also contrary to the constitutional principles of religious liberty.
Activist Massachusetts judges and weak legislators have proven that only the power of a state constitutional amendment, perhaps even a federal marriage amendment, can keep the Massachusetts story from repeating itself here.
Traditional marriage is America's, and South Carolina's, immune system. Without the structure and strength of true marriage, and the civilized family and community life that flows from it, the fabric of our civilization is in danger of being destroyed.
Strong traditional families still exist across America, but they need help. The marriage amendment is essential to give that help to the children and families of South Carolina.
Ms. Gounaud is the founder and past president of Family Friendly Libraries. She is a Christian musician and writer in Columbia.
So I wrote this letter to the editor:
Karen Jo Gounaud would like us to believe that the "protection" of marriage is the most important issue in the upcoming election. Is she living in the same country that I live in? Every day, we are sending young men and women to fight in a war that most of us no longer support. Many families are struggling to pay bills as gas prices continue to rise. Millions of American have inadequate health insurance and health care. This is divisive and unnecessary amendment that would undermine the Constitution.
She goes on to encourage the citizens of South Carolina to prepare for the vote "through objective fact-finding and respectful discussion". She suggests reading the article "Protecting America's Immune System - A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage" by Frank Turek. This article is neither objective nor based in fact. The "fact" that gay men live shorter lives and are sicker than the general population comes from a study done by Paul Cameron. He has been censure by several professional associations including the American Psychological and the American Socialogical Association for his flawed study methodology and misrepresentation of facts. He used the obituaries of gay men in 1983-1984 to create his data. I agree that there should be a respectful discussion. This inflammatory, psuedo-scientific article is not the starting place for this discussion. I suggest instead that you talk to a homosexual person. We will be happy to tell you about our non-legal families and why we want to be able to get married. If you sit down with a gay family and still believe that same-sex marriage should banned, then vote for this amendment. Let's really discuss the issue and not use fear and ignorance as the basis for our decision. If you don't know any gay people, check out www.scequality.org and watch a video about our families.
I hope it gets published. I am sure they got plenty of letters on the topic. J says that they will call me before they print it and there have been no calls so far.
J got on plane to Canada today. She is presenting at a national meeting. I am so proud of her, but I will miss her. I am headed out to Pride. I am bring my cards and sunscreen for people who may have forgotten.
Voters should protect marriage
By KAREN JO GOUNAUD
Guest columnist
Guest columnist David R. Gillespie on April 21 addressed what is perhaps the most important issue of the Nov. 7 election: the constitutional definition of marriage in South Carolina.
The meaning of that institution from the beginning of time has been "one man, one woman." Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby has made considerable progress in recent years toward discounting that sacred definition. With the help of savvy marketing techniques, biased media, relentless legal manipulators and activist judges, the laws and culture have been radically changing. Consequently, more and more Americans now accept or excuse a virtual potpourri of sexual identities and behaviors that our nation once rejected and condemned.
Attacking traditional marriage has become the activists' most important effort in this culture war. Because of all the misleading, inaccurate claims the public has accepted, it has become imperative for South Carolina to protect itself from this aggression in a special way: by creating and adopting the South Carolina Marriage Amendment.
South Carolina citizens can best prepare for this historical voting opportunity through objective fact-finding and respectful discussion. One of the finest reports available is an article by author Frank Turek called "Protecting America's Immune System - A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage."
Mr. Turek warns against both homosexual marriage and civil unions. He calls traditional marriage "the national immune system that protects our civilization from destruction." Anyone preparing seriously for the Nov. 7 vote should read his full report.
Here are some of his major points and arguments:
"Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare." The majority of skilled, objective family analysts consider it the gold standard for raising children. It results in lower rates for poverty, suicide and crime while bringing better health conditions. It also lowers government welfare costs and makes men more focused and responsible. It provides women, especially mothers, with more security, improves the life span of both spouses and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate.
"Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare" by increasing health problems among those practicing homosexual sex, shortening the median life span by 20 years to 30 years, spreading disease to innocent people and costing Americans millions of dollars in higher medical insurance premiums.
Legalization of homosexual marriage also leads to more destructive attitudes toward traditional marriage and parenting. For example, in Norway, after a decade of legalized homosexual marriage, out of wedlock births have soared (to)... nearly 70 percent of all children. "When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples," says Turek, "marriage and child-bearing will just be considered incidental."
Closer to home, Massachusetts' homosexual marriages have a shorter history, but the results are already provocative. For example, concerned second-grade public school parents in Lexington were recently told that because of Massachusetts' legalization of homosexual marriage, children's gay advocacy books like King and King (where the prince marries another prince) are required classroom reading.
Even more disturbing, Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies (specializing) in finding good homes for hard-to-place kids, had to shut down because it could not in good conscience place kids with homosexual couples as it was now required to do for a state license. That requirement is also contrary to the constitutional principles of religious liberty.
Activist Massachusetts judges and weak legislators have proven that only the power of a state constitutional amendment, perhaps even a federal marriage amendment, can keep the Massachusetts story from repeating itself here.
Traditional marriage is America's, and South Carolina's, immune system. Without the structure and strength of true marriage, and the civilized family and community life that flows from it, the fabric of our civilization is in danger of being destroyed.
Strong traditional families still exist across America, but they need help. The marriage amendment is essential to give that help to the children and families of South Carolina.
Ms. Gounaud is the founder and past president of Family Friendly Libraries. She is a Christian musician and writer in Columbia.
So I wrote this letter to the editor:
Karen Jo Gounaud would like us to believe that the "protection" of marriage is the most important issue in the upcoming election. Is she living in the same country that I live in? Every day, we are sending young men and women to fight in a war that most of us no longer support. Many families are struggling to pay bills as gas prices continue to rise. Millions of American have inadequate health insurance and health care. This is divisive and unnecessary amendment that would undermine the Constitution.
She goes on to encourage the citizens of South Carolina to prepare for the vote "through objective fact-finding and respectful discussion". She suggests reading the article "Protecting America's Immune System - A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage" by Frank Turek. This article is neither objective nor based in fact. The "fact" that gay men live shorter lives and are sicker than the general population comes from a study done by Paul Cameron. He has been censure by several professional associations including the American Psychological and the American Socialogical Association for his flawed study methodology and misrepresentation of facts. He used the obituaries of gay men in 1983-1984 to create his data. I agree that there should be a respectful discussion. This inflammatory, psuedo-scientific article is not the starting place for this discussion. I suggest instead that you talk to a homosexual person. We will be happy to tell you about our non-legal families and why we want to be able to get married. If you sit down with a gay family and still believe that same-sex marriage should banned, then vote for this amendment. Let's really discuss the issue and not use fear and ignorance as the basis for our decision. If you don't know any gay people, check out www.scequality.org and watch a video about our families.
I hope it gets published. I am sure they got plenty of letters on the topic. J says that they will call me before they print it and there have been no calls so far.
J got on plane to Canada today. She is presenting at a national meeting. I am so proud of her, but I will miss her. I am headed out to Pride. I am bring my cards and sunscreen for people who may have forgotten.
# posted by Dawn @ 9:06 AM 
