The Magic Number is 23. Foreseeing the Tactics of the LGBT to Make SSM Legal in All 50 States by Andre Jenkins

I. The Magic Number for the LGBT lobby is 23. 

What I mean by stating that "The Magic Number is 23," is that 23 is the target number of states the LGBT lobby needs in order to get same-sex “marriage”(SSM) forced upon all 50 states by the Supreme Court. The LGBT doesn’t need all states or even 60% of states to legalize SSM in order to get the Supreme Court to make a sweeping ruling enforcing SSM on all states; it just needs to hit its target of 23 states. Even if cases that have been sent to state courts that have a ban on SSM get rejected by that court, the gay lobby will then push the case to a higher court and eventually SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States.) 

In the event that 23 states have legalized SSM and one case that was formerly denied gets sent to SCOTUS, it is likely that Justice Kennedy will look at the momentum gained recently with the legalization of SSM, and all the lower court rulings, and decide that momentum will continue. Thus Justice Kennedy and the other pro SSM justices will make a sweeping ruling over all the states legalizing SSM. (The number may be actually higher than 23 states, but my argument is based on the lowest possible number, the highest possible number of states I'd guess would be 26 states)

The main vehicle the LGBT lobby is using in order to get SSM legalized is the courts. Out of the 18 current states that have legalized SSM, the people of the state got to vote only 3 out of those 18 times (Washington. Dec. 9, 2012. Maine. Dec. 29, 2012. Maryland. Jan. 1, 2013). In 2013, 10 states legalized gay marriage (HI, ILL, NM, NJ, RI, MD, CA, DE, MN, UT). During 2012, 2 states legalized (ME, WA) SSM. In 2011, one state (NY). In 2010, 1 state (NH). For 2009, 2 states (Iowa, VT).  In 2008, one state (CT), and in 2004, one state (MA). 

II. LGBT Salami Tactics

Up until now the LGBT has used what is called Salami Tactics to slowly gain momentum and power for its SSM cause. 

"Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion."

Evidence of the LGBT's use of Salami tactics can be seen in the many examples I have documented throughout the entirety of this paper. For example: In CA, Proposition 8, Section 3 of DOMA, and the vote of the people of California, was overturned by the Supreme Court even though the voters of California affirmed Proposition 8 twice. In Utah, Federal Judge Richard Shelby single handedly overruled the gay marriage ban. In NM, the NM Supreme Court voted unanimously to legalize SSM. In Illinois, it was the state senators and the state house legalized SSM. For NJ, it was State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson who initially overruled NJ’s gay marriage ban and then the NJ Supreme Court unanimously legalized SSM. In HI, the state House and Senate legalized SSM. 

Another tactic the LGBT is using is utilizing rogue county clerks, rogue attorney generals, rogue city mayors, and rogue governors to break their states constitution. For example in Texas, Houston’s Lesbian Mayor Anise Parker tried to overrule the Texas Constitution by stating: “[I] am hereby directing that same-sex spouses of employees who have been legally married in another jurisdiction be afforded the same benefits as spouses of a heterosexual marriage.” Parker was later overruled by a state district court judge, however the state district judge was then overruled by a federal judge.

In N.C. a clerk defied N.C. law by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  In N.M. rogue clerks also handed out marriage licenses to same-sex couples even before N.M. legalized SSM later on in 2013. The same kind of event happened in PA as well. In Hawaii, a “special session” was given by Governor Abercrombie to examine a gay marriage bill by the legislators. In PA, the Attorney general refused to defend the gay marriage ban and the Attorney General of N.M. also refused to defend the gay marriage ban.

The Attorney General of N.C. said that he supports gay marriage but nevertheless he will defend the ban against it. Virginia's Attorney General Mark Herring stated that he would not defend Virginia's SSM ban. In Ohio “a federal judge intervened to order state officials to ignore the state's marriage law and treat a same-sex couple as married when completing vital records. Ohio voters amended their Constitution in 2004 to protect marriage by an overwhelming majority, but this judge has chosen to be a law unto himself and trample on the will of the people.” Also in Ohio, there was a “federal court ruling that purports to force the state to list same-sex couples as 'married' on state death certificates in violation of the state constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a provision overwhelmingly adopted by voters in 2004.” 

In California, Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the gay marriage ban. In summary of what has been noted so far, the LGBT lobbyist will use the courts and rogue clerks, rogue governors, attorney generals, federal judges, and state judges to get SSM legalized.

Recently, in Oklahoma Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern,  struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional stating that the ban discriminated against same-sex couples for no rational reason. Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder "intervened in the legal battle over gay marriage in Utah on  announced that same-sex marriages that took place in Utah are considered legal under federal law even though state officials will not recognize those unions.

There is no doubt that in order to keep their momentum rolling the LGBT lobby will try to outdo itself by getting an additional 12-15 states to legalize SSM in 2014 which would equal a total of 33 states to legalize SSM. A Times magazine article noted that the next states that will legalize SSM will be Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah by 2016. It seems that such a prediction is in error, especially since Utah was just forced to legalize SSM and the fast rate at which states are legalizing SSM. David Badash, writer of the New Civil Rights Movement gives an interesting forecast of the next states that will legalize SSM here.

There is no reason to believe these articles are accurate with all of the surprise curveballs that have been thrown by rogue justices, clerks, federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, attorney generals, and the dirty fighting that the LGBT lobbyist are conducting. I will say that ALL states are under emergency watch and should be on guard in 2014 for the unexpected to happen. For as seen in Utah and Ohio, all it takes is one Federal Judge to overrule a state’s gay marriage ban in order for SSM to be legalized in that state.

A NY Times article confirms my conviction by noting: 

"In June, when the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether the Constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage, many thought the court had bought itself several years before it had to confront the question again. 

But the issue will soon return to the court, with officials in Utah saying that within the next few days they will ask the justices to block a trial judge’s decision last week that allows same-sex couples to marry there. 

“If the court thought it was going to get a few years,” said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, “I think they were naïve.”

The Supreme Court’s two decisions in June were finely balanced, with legal experts saying they had achieved the twin goals of advancing the cause of gay rights and avoiding a backlash in parts of the country not ready to embrace same-sex marriage.

One decision struck down the part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples in states that allowed such unions. The other declined to say whether the Constitution required states to allow such marriages in the first place.

Since then, the pace of change has been very rapid. When the justices heard arguments in the cases in March, same-sex marriage was permitted in nine states and the District of Columbia. If the Utah decision stands, the number of states allowing such marriages will have doubled, to 18.

The most important part of that article is the emphasis that the number of states that legalized SSM from June till the end of December doubled from 9 states to 18 states. That's roughly 9 states in about 6 months to legalize SSM after the SCOTUS ruling. At that pace 27-30 states will have legalized SSM by either May or June of 2014 if something huge doesn't stop the LGBT juggernaut. 

In conclusion to what I have shown above, the LGBT will try to get SSM legalized in all 50 States without the say of the people.
 

III. Onward Into Battle: The Argument From International Collectivity Against SSM

The recent rulings by the Supreme Court, State Supreme Courts, Federal Judges, appeals courts, and State House and State Senates, are not buying the following arguments commonly espoused by hetero-marriage advocates: the procreation argument, the accidental procreation argument, the children’s rights argument, the tradition argument, the religious argument against SSM, the heterosexual parents are best for children arguments, social science studies that reveal that children do worse with LGBT parents, reverse discrimination argument, slippery slope arguments (polygamy), the redefinition argument, or the state’s rights arguments.

From the above list, it seems that there is no possible argument that can convince the justices and legislators in power to deny SSM. Hence, an argument must be formulated to gather and rally those who are for hetero-marriage and those sitting on the fence about the issue so that stringent pressure will be put on the justices and legislators. (I constructed 3 arguments that are rarely if ever argued against SSM in my first paper of this series entitled Why Same-Sex Marriage is Like Opening Pandora's Box). The kind of rally I am alluding to can be seen from the 200,000 Taiwanese who marched for hetero-marriage, the 1.4 million French that marched for hetero marriage, the over 800,000 to 1 million Patriots that participated in the 2 Million Bikers Ride on 9/11 against the Million Muslim March, and the almost 2 million people that have stood up in support of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. The previous examples are just a minor blue-print of what HAS TO BE DONE. I’d estimate at least 5 million people will be needed to protest in the U.S.A alone. 

What would be even more effective is for all HETERO-marriage advocates Internationally, in all countries, to march against SSM on a set date. The institution that will have to lead the charge is the institution with the largest number of people, the Christian Church. There aren’t enough secular people against SSM to provide a sufficient number of people to stand against the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut by themselves.

Thus the International Collectivity Argument Against SSM is as follows: Since the courts are not buying ANY arguments against SSM, one of the very few ways to pressure the courts and strongly impact them to ban SSM is for an international collective effort by all heterosexual marriage advocates of all perspectives (Religious and Secular) on a grand scale, by marching, petitioning, and speaking out against SSM. This argument was not constructed to convince SSM advocates; rather I constructed this argument to rally hetero marriage advocates and those sitting on the fence to pressure the courts by voicing their protestation.

The LGBT juggernaut have made it clear through their actions that this isn’t just about gay rights and gay marriage, but a totalitarian silencing of opposition who are against their views. The LGBT has coerced themselves upon their opposition not just in the U.S. but internationally through what looks like a Cultural Marxism, Totalitarianism, Extreme Egalitarianism, and Flat-Landism.

The following are many examples how both the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut is coercing their opposition (especially religious individuals) into silence and acceptance of them by harassment, bullying, and media ridicule. All of the following are from countries that have legalized SSM:

*In the UK: A gay couple is suing the Church of England so they can get married in the church. Also in the UK, Chymorvah Private Hotel was successfully sued by a gay couple that they denied a room to.   

Another Bed and Breakfast was successfully sued (Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berkshire) when they refused to room a gay couple. 

*Even Sikh temples in the UK stopped all weddings because Sikh leaders feared that they could be subject to legal trouble for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, which are forbidden under their teachings. 

*In Denmark, the churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church were forced to have gay weddings within the church after a gay couple filed a complaint.

*Canada: “In British Columbia, a lesbian couple rented a hall from the Catholic group Knights of Columbus to hold their wedding reception. When the Knights realized it was for a lesbian couple, they canceled the booking and refunded the money. The couple took the Knights to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and won a small judgment.”   

*Canadian sports commentator Damian Goddard was fired for supporting a hockey agent’s stance opposing gay marriage when he wrote: “I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” 

*France, peaceful traditional marriage demonstrators were put in jail by French police and gay activist vandalized the premises of the Jerome Lejeuene Foundation 

*In Italy: “The government has just issued a new set of guidelines for journalists for how to treat “LGBT” people. The guidelines, funded by the Council of Europe, dictate what terms and images must be used by the media and which must cannot be used when treating LGBT subjects. Journalists who do not comply are threatened with legal and professional penalties. Journalists are instructed not use negative sexual images from gay pride events and to refrain from emplying terms like “natural family”, “traditional family” and “gay marriage”. The guidelines explain that those terms are discriminatory and that marriage and family alone will do.”

*In the U.S. Airforce there are many cases of gays bullying Christians over their beliefs regarding gay marriage. The first case involved 19 year Air Force Veteran Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, who was relieved of his position because he objected to  his Lesbian commander's "plans to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality. During the conversation, his commander ordered him to share his personal views on homosexuality. “I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he told me. “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.” There have been many more complaints about Christians in the Airforce being harassed due to their beliefs on gay marriage as shown here, and an odd event where drag queens headlined a Diversity Day in the Airforce.

*Oregon, a Christian bakery was forced to shut down after a lesbian couple sued the owners for not baking them a wedding cake. In CO, a Christian baker was sued and ordered by a court to make gay couples wedding cakes or face jail time.

 

*N.M. a lesbian couple successfully sued a photographer who refused to take pictures of their lesbian wedding. 

*WA: A 72 year old florists was sued twice, for not selling a gay couple flowers for their gay wedding.

*In Hawaii, a lesbian couple successfully  sued a hotel (which was the owner’s house) for not letting them stay there because the owner felt uncomfortable with lesbians in her house. 

*In VT: A lesbian couple successfully sued the Catholic owners of an Inn because the owners wouldn't let them have a wedding reception at the Inn. This article has mountains of examples of international liberal and LGBT fascism:  and this page thoroughly documents the International Liberal, Feminist, and LGBT Fascism. 

Lesbian Hawaiian Representative Georgette "Jo" Jordan actually voted against SSM in Hawaii because she saw that religious people, companies, and institutions would not be protected if SSM was legalized in Hawaii. Jordan stated: 

"I was blasted by the GLBT community on Saturday, outside the door. That took me aback. At the time, I hadn’t stated my position, and I was still undecided. These were testifiers the day before, saying, “How can you be undecided? You should be a 'yes.' Do you know what this means?” And I politely engaged with them: "I have some problems with SB1." I explained the issues and they slammed me again. “It’s good. Just vote yes.” They started getting boisterous. My natural instinct is, I’m going to fly some words at you. But you can’t, so I’m like, "Thank you."  When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible? My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed. The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair. We’re talking about creating equity. They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here.

I really am not happy with the exemptions. Too narrow. I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches, I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there. We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation.

I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions, to not erode Constitutional rights. I don’t belong to any particular denomination. I don’t wear one of those hats. I take religion out of everything. My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. Everybody finds their own religion somewhere. I have the same values as they do, but it’s just a little different. When I walked into this session, that rose to the surface. Why me? Why am I trying to protect your religious rights?"
 

IV. LGBT Juggernaut's Identity Theft of Equating the Black Civil Rights Struggle as the Same as Theirs

I will state at the start that LGBT individuals have suffered some inequalities and indignities in the U.S. However, to associate and equate LGBT struggles with Black Civil Rights struggles is misguided. For example the silly slogan that "Gay is the New Black." That's funny, to me as a black man, none of my ancestors were put on slave ships because of their sexual orientation, but rather their black skin that they can't hide in a closet. Black Civil Rights is just a continuation of the Black struggle from slavery. Gay rights is not a continuation of Black Rights, the LGBT have their own struggle. Blacks didn't go around equating their struggles with the Jews or Native Americans. How about the over-representation of black males in the prison system, not because of their sexual orientation but because of situations related to the color of their skin. 

                       

Most black men that are in prison are there due to selling drugs. What is know from history about drugs in the black community? The government flooded the black ghettos, not gay ghettos with drugs. Moreover, black men are arrested more than whites.

In addition, for the most part, blacks have not been able to afford quality lawyers like there white counterparts. The violent conditions in Detroit and Chicago have nothing to do with gay drug dealing or gay gangs, but rather with historical social situations that led to blacks being impoverished, forming gangs, selling drugs, and being over-represented in the prison system.

None of those situations I just listed have anything to do with being gay. Gay pride buses aren't bombed like the black freedom buses were bombed, gays aren't being hosed down and chased by German Shepards like blacks were. Even if some blacks were gay, they weren't being hosed down for being gay, but rather because of that black skin that they can't hide in the closet like they can do with their sexual orientation.

A common counter I hear is that blacks weren't disowned and kicked out of their parent's house for their sexual orientation like LGBT individuals have been. Again, such an argument is misguided in that blacks were taken from their homeland on slaveships, African Americans don't know the language of their African ancestors, don't have the last names of their African ancestors, and don't share the customs or culture of their ancestors either. African Americans have a broken link in their heritage that stems back from many centuries.

 

Gays complain that they are being discriminated against because religious companies and institutions won't let them work there or that religious bakeries won't make them a "wedding" cake. That's silly because for the most part, blacks couldn't even sit down to have a glass of water at a restaurant or even a sandwich, while gays can walk into the very same bakeries that won't make them a wedding cake and be served a birthday cake, a New Year's Cake, eat cake as a snack, or take home for dessert.

Nobody is pouring ketchup on gays, spitting on them, putting them in jail like what happened to blacks, over them asking for a wedding cake. Actually gays are suing bakeries that don't make them a wedding cake and are winning. 

The consequences for not making a gay wedding cake is a fine or jail time. Moreover, why would a person work for a religious institution they know doesn't agree with their lifestyle? It's just a setup to force religious institutions to approve of their lifestyles. 

 

No one is bombing gay churches like black churches were bombed. There are no institutional enactments of hetero only pools, hetero only fountains, hetero only restaurants, hetero only telephone booths, hetero only waiting rooms, hetero only theaters, hetero only hotels, heteros get to sit at the front of the bus, hetero only schools. 

 

In his article entitled The People's District 5 Reasons Gay is Not the New Black, AD Thomason states: 

1. You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

Homosexual men/women will never see a society that makes it a point–IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE–to remind them that they’re lesser in creation and not deserving of life’s joys. The homosexual man/woman has never seen this day and never will.

2. You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

Some may think this is unfair because it deals with something that happened pre-civil rights, but historians agree that this was the root of all that was combatted during the Civil Rights era. Society has never been set up to divide and conquer the homosexual from birth.

3. Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

The Middle Passage is part of the African American legacy as it brought Africans to America–as property. Many died during the Middle Passage; and those that made it, with strong communal ties, were sold for raw material. They were seen not as a person but as valuable property at best–their value being determined by the trader, auctioneer, and families with the highest bid. Homosexual men/women in their struggle of “inequality” will never know of a day, month, year or decades that define them or their culture in this way.

4. Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Dread Scott sued the federal courts for his freedom but lost 7-2 due to the fact that he, nor any other person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States. Homosexuals will never know a day where they are not considered citizens of the United States.

5. Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle with scripture as a basis for justification."

 

The LGBT struggle is different from the Jim Crow struggle of blacks as depicted here. LGBT individuals do face struggles as a result of who they are, but they shouldn't hijack the Black Civil Rights Movement by equating it to their own struggle, and that goes for black LGBT individuals as well.

Another erroneous comparison is the LGBT struggle with interracial marriage. Marriage in all cultures, throughout all times has been situated around opposite sexes, and very, very rarely, and never successfully, has it been situated around same-sex marriage. The institution of marriage was designed around opposite sexes for obvious reasons that I don't need to emphasize. Differences in hair color, skin color, height, weight, etc doesn't change the abilities in principle of a male/female union.

V. Faking Anti-Gay Hate Crimes 

What is even more interesting is that there are many examples of LGBT individuals lying about being victims of hate crimes (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a big list is documented here, a huge list of different fake hate crimes is documented here). Dirty tactics like faking anti-gay hate crimes (crying wolf) to get attention and sympathy, will only end up backfiring on LGBT individuals when and if someone really does attack them out of hatred for who they are.

Another dirty tactic the LGBT uses is it’s “pawns” on facebook. Such as the pages “The Virgin Marry Should Have Aborted, The Virgin Marry Should Have STILL Aborted, here is a huge list of similar pages probably run by the same person and her network of friends. Other pages are included: here, here, here, here, here, this person, here, and here

VI. Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect

LGBT unions have a meta-sized effect on the institution of marriage and society. I use the term metasize to mean that LGBT unions have a largely over-represented impact on society and the marriage institution relative to their small size (6%-12% of the population). The reason LGBT unions have such a meta-sized effect is due to how radically different they and their subculture are than heterosexual unions and traditional society. LGBT is a counter-culture that consists of largely gender-non conforming individuals in anti-traditional forms. 

Steven R. Strahler writes about the metasize impact of acknowledging LGBT unions on the institution of marriage by writing the following: 

“An older marriageable population with more assets to protect means that demand for prenuptial agreements is soaring. At Chicago law firm Berger Schatz, managing partner Leon Finkel predicts it will jump by some 50 percent. He expects LBGT clients to have a disproportionate impact on family law relative to their share of the population." 

Dr. Thomas Sowell further emphasizes the impact of including LGBT into the Hetero institution of marriage will have on the institution as a whole in the following statement: 

"Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake. Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex. Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality."

Dr. Douglas Allen takes Dr. Sowell's argument further by demonstrating that inclusion and presence of LGBT unions into the hetero institution of marriage, changes the laws to fit LGBT unions and families, which in turn makes those laws a bad fit for Hetero unions and families: 

 “It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. 

Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage, contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with “legal” parent. A legal parent, like one of the partners within a same-sex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating “legal” parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages."

Sociologist Dr Patricia Morgan affirms Dr. Allen's points above by concluding: 

"In the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa, since matters pertaining to complementary sexes cannot apply to those of the same sex. For example: Spanish birth certificates record ‘progenitor A’ and ‘progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’. In Canada, the concept of natural parent has been erased from law - for every child and every couple - with court rulings that children could have three parents. Sweden has also moved to eliminate the words ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ in return for one neutral word." 

Supreme Court Justice Roberts also noted in the Prop 8 and DOMA hearings that the Hetero Institution of Marriage and its laws were developed over time due to the differences between males and females:

"I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples.  It is -- yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems  to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don't have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them."

Manuel A. Lopez, who is a gay man, even understands that the Hetero Institution of Marriage and it's laws, are fitted around Hetero unions and families: 

"Marriage has developed over many centuries to meet the needs of heterosexuals. Gay marriage would inevitably be a kind of imitation. Like most imitations, it couldn't wholly succeed, and would therefore result in more or less self-conscious parody. Widening marriage to include people of the same sex means stripping it of much of its meaning and diminishing it for everybody. This would have a relatively small effect on the lives of people who are already married, and whose notion of marriage is already largely settled, but it would have a profound and harmful effect on future generations of Americans."

I provide additional elaboration of the points made in this section in the first paper of this series: Part III C of Why Same-Sex is Like Opening Pandora's Box


VII. Conclusions

In the year of 2014, the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut will try to legalize SSM in all 50 states, and will do so by any means. As I have thoroughly documented above, the LGBT juggernaut will bypass the vote of "we the people" by the choice of Federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, attorney generals. etc. They will continue their fake anti-gay hate crimes, continue to hijack the Black Civil Rights Movements as equivalent to their own struggle, continue to bully small religious businesses, continue to try to silence anyone who disagrees with them and demonize them.

As I noted above with the International Collectivity Argument Against SSM, this is a war not just against the natural family, but also a war against religion, a war against freedom of speech and freedom of belief that goes against the Liberal status quo. 

In 2014 we can expect to see Gay Pride demonstrations at the Sochi Olympics in Russia and at the World Cup in Brazil, more LGBT individuals (celebrities, law makers, and high status individuals) will come out of the closet, there will be more loophole surprises through the court system in relation to SSM, and more states will legalize SSM.

Too much happened in 2013 to turn back now; 18 states legalized SSM, and 9 states legalized SSM within 6 months. All of the pro heterosexual marriage forces nationally and internationally must join and rise up at once or SSM will be legalized not just in the U.S. but Internationally. 

Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Opening Pandora's Box by Andre Jenkins

I oppose same-sex marriage.

Unlike the vast majority of cases against same sex marriage I acknowledge that same-sex couples actually do have children and use non-traditional ways of procreating. Moreover, unlike most cases against same-sex marriage, I don't compare who is better between same-sex parents and heterosexual parents and I don't use religious arguments, natural law arguments, or arguments based off of preference. 

Rather this case, which is a secular case, made by a secular writer, emphasizes overlooked aspects of the empirical costs of legalizing same-sex marriage. 

I make three overlooked arguments against same-sex marriage that demonstrate how allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages and how those arguments are sufficient to justify denying marriage to same-sex couples.

1) The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument: If the government legalizes same-sex marriage it is also legalizing transsexual marriage, transgender marriage, and bisexual marriage as well. I elaborate on how the inclusion of same-sex, bisexual, and trans unions into the marriage institution will negatively impact and change the marriage institution from something that once best fit heterosexual unions, to something that is a poor fit for heterosexual unions and their children in order to accommodate trans, same-sex, and bisexual families. I conclude that a one-size fits all marriage institution does not fit all unions and families equally and ends up hurting heterosexual families the most.

2) The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument: If the government and society acknowledge same-sex couples (as well as bi, transsexual, and transgendered couples) as the same as hetero couples by granting same-sex couples marital status, then the government and society also acknowledge same-sex parenting (as well as bi, transsexual, and transgender) as the same to hetero-parenting. Thus the sex of the parents doesn't matter for the raising of a child. 

From the conclusions above I take the argument a step-further than most heterosexual marriage advocates by emphasizing and connecting those conclusions to the trickle down effect of how "biological sex" not being essential to marriage or parenting negatively impacts society. I both connect and demonstrate the many manifestations in society of "biological sex" losing it's importance in law such as males who psychologically identify as trans-women being allowed by law to use private female spaces (restrooms, rape shelters, athletic teams), how growing trends of children in the U.S. and Europe are undergoing and are allowed by law to undergo sex-change treatment, I emphasize that more children are being recognized by law as transgendered even at the age of 6,  and how biological sex is losing it's importance in child custody cases as well. I conclude that sexual distinctions are becoming annihilated and the acknowledgement of same-sex marriage is the battering ram for such an annihilation to occur.

3) The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument: The marriage institution will be impacted not because same-sex couples can’t procreate within their union, but rather quite the opposite: the fact that there are many same-sex couples that procreate via different ways and are raising children, will change family law within the marriage institution. The central problem is that LGBT households do both raise and produce children. I argue that it is how LGBT families procreate and parent that poses such a lethal threat to the marriage institution. 

*In addition to the three main arguments above, I also discuss the 1,138 rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities that LGBT couples are missing out on because they are not allowed to get married. Finally, I conclude this paper by raising 2 new questions to the marriage debate 

I. The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument: How Transgender, Transsexual, and Bisexual Identities will Negatively Impact the Marriage Institution

The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument is as follows: The more radically different a new union is compared to the baseline of heterosexual unions (which the institution of marriage has been specifically tailored for in the U.S. for over 200 years), the more of a negative impact the inclusion of the new union will have on the institution of marriage,  even if the total number of members in the new group is small. Same-sex couples are a radically different union from heterosexual couples and legalizing SSM opens the door for couples with an even higher degree of radical difference than that of same-sex couples. Such other radically different unions include Bisexual, Transsexual, and Transgender couples. Thus, since the legalization of SSM opens the door for  additional radically different new couples, SSM is the central new radically different union that must be prohibited. 

It's the degree of difference between heterosexual unions and the new radically different unions that plays the biggest role on changing marital family law for all since laws will have to be tailored to better fit the inclusion of the new groups who each have unique special needs relative to their families due to how the couples are situated. (I elaborate on this point in my sequel paper in Part VI. Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect)

Including these four radically different unions will negatively impact and change the marriage institution from something that once best fit heterosexual unions and families, to something that is a poor fit for heterosexual unions and their children in order to accommodate trans, same-sex, and bisexual families. A one-size fits all marriage institution does not fit all unions and families equally and ends up hurting heterosexual families the most.

For example, the introduction of same-sex, transsexual, transgender, and bisexual unions into marriage law directly impacts every aspect of family law within the marriage institution for all couples since marriage law and family law are inextricably intertwined, as demonstrated through laws governing maternal and paternal custody rights, consanguinity laws, inheritance laws, laws pertaining to splitting of property,  child support, etc. The chart below depicts heterosexual unions/families being the base-line, and transgender unions being the most extreme deviation from the heterosexual union base-line:

Heterosexual Unions--Bisexual Unions--Homosexual Unions--Transsexual --Transgender 

*Transgender Unions are the most extremely different, and are even radically different from homosexual unions and families, in large part because of situations with transgender men who become pregnant and then start taking their testosterone hormones again after they have their children to partially become a male. (They can’t fully become a male because they still have all of their reproductive organs. Many have had double mastectomies).  

*Transsexual Unions are very close to being as extremely different as Transgendered Unions. Another situation that is occurring as a result of new reproduction technology is that Female to Male transsexuals freeze their eggs and embryos before transitioning, and after their transition they implant a gestational surrogate with their eggs. The same thing is occurring with Male to Female transsexuals who freeze their sperm before transitioning and after their transition they have their sperm transferred to a gestational surrogate or their female partner. 

Think about how an individual who is now by law seen as a female, but was born a male, yet is considered to be the father of “his” child will turn marriage family law upside down. Or think about a Female to Male Transsexual who froze her eggs before transitioning and had them implanted into a gestational surrogate after transitioning. Add to this scenario the FtM’s spouse who froze his sperm before transitioning, donating his sperm to the gestational surrogate after his transition and marriage to his FtM spouse. Put this and any other similar radically bizarre scenarios in the context of one marital family, law for all kinds of couples, where judges view all couples as "the same" and try to treat them all as "the same."

"Some" of the differences between Heterosexual Couples and Homosexual Couples that impact family law include that Hetero families consist of only 2 parents “in principle” and Homosexual couples include 3 or more parents “in principle.” For hetero families there is one parent of each biological sex and the child of the hetero couple will have a parent of the same sex to him/her and will have a parent of the opposite sex to him/her “in principle.” 

For homosexual couples, the child of their union may or may not be raised by a parent of the same sex to him/her and the child may or may not be raised by parent of the opposite sex to him/her. The child may not even be raised by one of his/her biological parents. For Hetero couples there is both maternal and paternal custody rights and presumption of paternity to protect the mother of the child.  In lesbian unions there are maternal custody rights for divorced lesbians, but a sperm donor’s paternal custody rights are uncertain in the context of same-sex marriages.  In gay unions there are paternal custody rights for divorced gay married couple, but a surrogate’s maternal custody rights are uncertain.

Bisexual couples are different from strictly Heterosexual couples due to the fact that Bisexual couples include people who divorce a spouse of the opposite sex and marry a spouse of the same-sex, and people who were once hetero and then decided later on that they are homosexual. Complications have arisen as a result of bisexual couples being added into the family law of the marriage franchise due to situations where an ex marries a person of the same-sex and that same-sex partner asks for and wins parental rights over the other biological parent of the child. Some cases have resulted in a situation where a divorced single mother loses child custody against her ex-husband and his husband. 

  

Darren Rosenblum, a gay man who identifies himself as a “mother” writes in his paper "Unsex Mothering: Toward a New Culture of Parenting": In the actual act of parenting, biology plays no necessary role. Unsexed mothering is relational, not biological, and it is an act, not a fixed identity. While biological elements may undoubtedly further that relationship, one need not engage in these functions in order to mother a child. A male parent could say to others, “I am the child’s mother.”

In his debate against Dennis Prager, Perez Hilton echoes a similar thought process. He argues that males and females are only different in relation to their body parts, but overall males and females can accomplish the same things." 

In other words males and females, in principle, are not pre-disposed to having certain essential and unique qualities different from one another that make them better suited as mother or father. Hilton stated: "I believe that men and women are the same… I believe that I am the same as my sister…We may have different body parts, but we're...[we] make equal contributions to society."

  

Dennis Prager responded to Perez by stating: "Perez, I actually respect your intellectual honesty here. See, a lot of people I debate on this acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different. Perez thinks that we are, except for body parts, identical. If you believe that, then it doesn't matter what gender you marry." A new study on the striking differences between male and female brains seems to support Prager's position better than Perez position.

 

 

In her paper "When Children are Better Off Fatherless" Michele Weldon argues that children don’t even need male fathers. In support of her case she quotes Joseph Pleck’s (of the University of Illinois) book “Fathers in Cultural Context,” in which Pleck writes: “The notion that fathering is essential to children’s social and personality development seems to be a uniquely American preoccupation. Current research actually provides little support for … this popular conception of paternal essentiality.” 

Even in same-sex parenting research, biology is downplayed. Professor Douglas Allen notes this in his assessment of same-sex parenting studies:

 "One element of feminist theory that crops up within this literature is the irrelevance of biology — a major theoretical competitor to feminist theories of the family. The importance of gender over sex has already been mentioned. Males can make good parents if they parent “like a female.” Another area is in the role of “social mother,” the mother not biologically related to the child. Goldberg et al. (2008) claim that by the time a child is 3.5 years old, children are indifferent between the biological and social mother. Based on a biased sample of 30 couples and some very soft questions they conclude: “These women demonstrate the power of “social motherhood” in creating maternal connections that transcend biological relatedness over time".

 

The Iowa Supreme Court also echoed that a parent’s sex doesn’t matter when they concluded: "The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”  
 

From the above quotes it is reasonable to conclude that if one is to accept same-sex marriage, one must also accept the premise that male and females and all of the manifestations that traditionally derive from male and female distinctions (man, woman, mother, father, husband, wife, boy, girl etc.) are not biologically binding or essential to the development of a child. 

I provide additional support for this contention with the following examples of transsexual and transgender individuals who transitioned “within” their marriages and still maintained their marriage.

One example is the case of Jonni and Angela Pettit in Pacifica, CA. Angela used to be David but underwent sex-reassignment surgery. He decided he wanted to live as a woman, and Jonni still wanted to stay married to David even after his SRS operation. Here we see the transition not just from a male to female, but from a husband to a wife, and from a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage. 

In an article entitled “A Mom Becomes A Man, And A Family Sticks Together,” Les, who was born a female and married to her husband, felt like a man inside and wanted to transition into a man. After she told her husband Scot about how she was feeling, Scot was surprised at first but was supportive of the transition and wanted to stay married. Scot and Les had 2 daughters before Les’s transition. In this case we not only see the transition from a female to a male, but also the transition of a wife to a co-husband, a mom to a dad, a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage.

Laura Lang tells the story of Alyson Meiselman who was born Alan and transitioned “within” his marriage: 

Alyson Meiselman, born Alan Meiselman, started taking hormone treatments last year and now dresses in women's clothing. Her driver's license, her birth certificate, and all her other important documents say she's a woman. In the next few months, she'll take a trip to Canada, where a doctor will perform gender-reassignment surgery--completing her transition. It's a big change, but Meiselman and her family like to say that nothing else, really, about their lives in North Potomac, Md., is different. She remains spouse and "Dad" to her wife and three kids. She's also continuing a family law practice in Montgomery County, despite snubs from colleagues and a judicial bench that's hardly greeted her with open arms. In this case we see the transition from male to female, but there is a curveball in this case in that there is no transition from dad to mom. The children still see their now female parent as “dad.

The example of Thomas Beatie is actually a transgender case due to the fact that Thomas never fully transitioned into a male and he still became pregnant even though his “gender identity” was legally changed. Before his marriage Thomas (who was and still is a female) had undergone a double mastectomy, and had taken testosterone since 1997: 

"He changed all his legal paperwork to reflect his transition from female to male, but he retained his female reproductive organs and bore three children during his marriage to Nancy; he had stopped taking testosterone around 2006 in order become pregnant, as Nancy had had a hysterectomy. In late March a judge in Arizona ruled that Beatie and his wife, Nancy Roberts Beatie, could not be granted a divorce because they could not be considered legally married. Maricopa County Family Court judge Douglas Gerlach said there was insufficient evidence that Beatie was male when the couple married in Hawaii in 2003, although Hawaii considered them a legally married, opposite-sex couple; they moved to Arizona in 2010. Beatie is appealing the ruling, saying it fails to recognize his gender identity, that he wants his children to know their parents were legally married, and that he fears complications if he wants to marry again."

The added dimension of transgender identity to the marriage institution was specifically emphasized when New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage. Elizabeth Mcdonald writes: 

"The legislation, does not just provide that same-sex couples may marry. Section 5 of the act amended the interpretation section of the Marriage Act 1955 to read: "marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" (emphasis added). This definition is significant as it allows the marriage of any two people, without the need for either person to define themselves as either the same or different sex as their partner, or to be legally recognized as either male or female. The definition therefore will allow a transgender man (someone born with a female body who has a male gender identify) to legally marry a cisgender woman (someone born with a female body and a female gender identify) without having to first establish his legal sex. It allows a person who identifies as intersex (a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive anatomy that does not seem to fit with the typical biological definitions of female or male) and whose birth certificate records their sex as indeterminate to marry any other person."

In Italy, a Bolognese couple, Alessandro and Alessandra Bernaroli, had their marriage dissolved by the State against their will when the “former” husband and now co-wife, Alessandro, changed sex and became Alessandra. The local marriage registry took note of her name change and automatically dissolved their marriage because it was a same-sex marriage. 

Darren Rosenblum writes: “We now know, based on social science, theory, and practice that the identities of 'male' and 'female' are not irrevocably attached to biosex. Men can become women and women can become men. Furthermore, gender itself shifts; 'women' can be 'masculine' and 'men' can be feminine.” 

If what Rosenblum writes is true, then many questions need to be posed. For it seems that supporting the seemingly modest demands of the LGBT movement -- such as same-sex marriage--necessitates accepting a whole host of existential changes that were neither presented to the public in good faith, nor scrutinized closely for their potential collateral damage.

In conclusion, to this argument, if these four new radically different unions are added to the family law of the marriage institution, then  a male can become a female, and a female can become a male in the eyes of the law. In addition, a female can be considered a man and a male can be considered as a woman. Individuals who were once husbands within a marriage can now become wives, and wives can now become husbands either with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage and in the eyes of the law. Moreover, a mother can become a father with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage  and in the eyes of the law. In a greater context, a grandfather can become a grandmother or a grandmother a grandfather, an uncle can become an aunt, and an aunt can become an uncle, etc. 

II. The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument

The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument reflects the most demonstrable impact that SSM has, is, and will have on society in the U.S. and other countries that have legalized SSM. This argument builds off of the insights presented in "The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument" in that it further emphasizes the impact that acknowledging "gender-nonconforming" unions is having on society right now. Since the institution of marriage has a high status and recognition in society, the legalization of same-sex marriage acts as both a bridge and battering ram to open the door for the annihilation of existing sex distinctions and gender distinctions, as well as the manifestations of an entirely new sexual system. 

The Bridge and Battering Argument is as follows: Marriage is acknowledged as the most important and central institution in society. With the addition of Same-Sex “marriage” to the marital institution, society and the law acknowledges that biological sex does not matter in marriage or parenting. Thus the distinctions between males and females are deemed insignificant as well. Since the distinctions between males and females are deemed insignificant as a result of SSM, many manifestations throughout society have risen to the surface that reflect the lack of acknowledged distinctions between males and females in all of the countries and states that have legalized SSM. The growing net effect of such annihilation of sex distinctions has negatively impacted society on all levels. Hence SSM acts as a bridge to get society to the point of further depreciating sexual distinctions, and SSM also acts as a battering ram to open the door for many more and new manifestations that reflect the depreciation of those distinctions.

Dennis Prager echoes this argument by stating: “So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society. It isn’t. The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings’ personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters… It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities."

There are many more manifestations that have extended  throughout society that have risen to the surface as a result of blurring the lines of sex distinctions and the entrance of transgender identity. (Keep in mind that a transgender person has not physically or will not physically change their body, but still identifies as the opposite sex, whereas transsexuals have changed their bodies to the opposite sex.)

The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument can be demonstrated from many different nations and states that have legalized SSM such as Massachusetts (the first state to legalize SSM), Canada (the second country to legalize SSM), California (the most populous state to legalize gay marriage), the UK, Argentina, etc. For example:

 

 

Lindsey Tanner reports that there is an increase of children in Massachusetts who are undergoing sex transitions: 

"His report (Dr. Norman Spack) details a fourfold increase in patients at the Boston hospital. His Gender Management Service clinic, which opened at the hospital in 2007, averages about 19 patients each year, compared with about four per year treated for gender issues at the hospital in the late 1990s. The report details 97 girls and boys treated between 1998 and 2010; the youngest was 4 years old. Kids that young and their families get psychological counseling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12."

The Huffington Post has a page full of examples of the increase in people “coming out of the closet” as transgendered. In the UK, same-sex marriage has also been legalized and the country is also seeing a growing trend in transgendered children:

"The number of children wanting a sex change in 2012 saw an increase of 50 per cent compared to the previous year. According to The Royal College of Psychiatrists people are coming forward at a younger age as the internet fuels increasing knowledge and acceptance of transgender people. Campaigners have called for more routine use of puberty-delaying drugs for children who feel from a young age that they are in the wrong body."

Massachusetts has also made it legal for transgender children who “psychologically” identify as the opposite “gender” to use the restrooms, locker-rooms, changing rooms, and participate on sports teams of individuals’ of the opposite “sex.” Here we see the confusion between “sex” and “gender.” Massachusetts public schools (junior high and high schools) also have transgender workshops promoting the transgender lifestyle. Many more examples of the annihilation of sexual distinction in Massachusetts are thoroughly documented by Mass Resistance pages such as this one and this one.

In Canada, Bill C-279 will soon be legalized which lets transgendered individuals use private female spaces such as restrooms, locker-rooms, communal showers, etc.  In California, where same-sex marriage has also been legalized, The California State Assembly passed a bill mandating that schools permit transgender identified individuals to participate on athletic teams and use locker-rooms of the “gender” they identify with regardless if they are of the opposite “sex.” The bill’s author was a gay activist by the name of Tom Ammiano.

In her article entitled “Shape-Shifters are Changing America” Fay Voshell describes the above trans accommodations by making the following points: 

"Mostly unbeknownst to most of us mortals, a modern day shape-shifter can become the opposite of the sex he or she was born as, transforming into a man or woman in an instant. It doesn't matter if the biological assignment given at birth remains. Proclamation of one's sexual identity is enough. One's gender can be established by fiat. Even children may change sex just by proclamation, as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary School guidelines affirm, stating that even if a child physiologically resembles a boy in every respect, but decides to be a girl, his new identity is to be acknowledged as the "real" one. The modern-day equivalent of the gods visiting unsuspecting women unawares in areas where they thought they were safe from male predators just might be the ladies' public bathroom, now open in an ever increasing number of states to any man who self-identifies as a woman. The 6'4" hairy guy who just came into the women's bathroom to relieve himself is not at all what he appears to be. No; no! He is a sort of god in disguise. He has by mere will transformed himself into a woman. Move along, lady. There's nothing to see -- or fear. Don't believe your lying eyes."

In Argentina (the 1st S. American country to legalize SSM) a transgender couple in which the husband (who was born and is still a female yet is identified as man by the law) both married and became pregnant with the wife (who was born and is still a male yet is identified as a woman by the law). Also in Argentina a 6 yr. old who was born a male has been given an id card which identifies him as a girl.

In Spain (legalized SSM in 2005) a transgender man (born a female) who was in the process of becoming a transsexual and marrying "his" husband, was pregnant with twins but ended up having an abortion.  

All of the above example are manifestations of what happens when a country’s central institution is desexed and the individuals within such an institution can morph back and forth between sex, gender, mother and father, husband and wife, boy and girl, son and daughter, male and female, heterosexual marriage, trans marriage, and same sex marriage.

B. Deeper Implications of The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument: Transgender Identities Annihilate the Identities of Non-Trans People

The following questions have been summoned by feminist writer Elizabeth Hungerford:

"The maxim “trans women are women” is a false equivalency that means at least three things. First, it means that being raised as girl from birth is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without these formative experiences. Second, it means that having a female body is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without being female bodied. And third, it means that to be a “woman” simply reflects an individual’s desired relation to the social category “woman;” rather than serving as shorthand for the physical and cumulative experiential realities specific to female-born (and certain intersex) people around the globe."

 

Hungerford continues: 

"To be a “woman” is to have been assigned the girl/woman social position at birth; subjective identification with that social position is irrelevant and varies wildly. Reducing the experience of womanhood to a subjectively defined “inner knowledge” that is “inclusive” of anyone who claims to have such inner womanly knowledge erases the lived realities and material constraints placed on women and girls from birth– regardless of whether women enjoy being “women” or not, and regardless of whether they “identify” with other women or not."

 

Hungerford’s argument that to be a woman is in part, to have the social experiences that women face every day due to their biology that males don’t have, is strengthened by a transsexual individual that was once a male but is now a female when asked, “How differently are you treated now that you are a woman from when you were considered male?" Here was the answer:

"Wow, there’s a whole book in answer to this question, I think the first thing that was noticeable was that overnight people stopped automatically assuming that I was right about stuff, my factual advice was treated as suspect, whereas emotional advice was taken more seriously. People also seemed to not be able to tell when I was joking as quickly, there was an expectation that I would be serious, that any sarcasm, or pretending not to get something for comic effect was me actually not getting things." 

And more:

"The pressures to behave were changed, before I transitioned I was very skinny and I remember my mum telling me that I needed to bulk up because “what if you were on a bus and a woman got on with a baby, you’d need to be able to help her with her pram, what sort of a man wouldn’t be strong enough to do that?” as soon as I transitioned it was suddenly not an issue.”

 

Another feminist writer by the name of GallusMag takes her readers down the dark road that denying “sex” distinctions leads to when she writes: 

"But they (transgender women) do more than deny female reality and make kooky claims: They are using the political capital of Lesbians and Gays to pass laws enforcing their male-centric female-phobic sexist views. “Gender Identity Protections” are laws that eliminate sex-based protections for females. Examples of such protected areas are: bathrooms, hospital bed assignments, prisons, locker rooms, sports competitions, statistical data collection, Title IX endowments, women’s health resources, statistics and research endowment, sex-based crime statistics, support groups, rape crisis centers, communal showers, children’s sleepover camps, women’s shelters, and women’s colleges."

 

GallusMag continues: 

"One of the tropes Transjacktivists use to promote and legalize their desire to eliminate female spaces is to assert that males with GID are speshul snowflakes or claim that males wouldn’t adopt transgenderism in order to prey on women. Or that males who are arrested repeatedly for getting off on watching women perform intimate activities (in places they assume they are free from males) wouldn’t go through the trouble of putting on a wig that makes those same activities legal. Whut??? Are you out of your mind? Why wouldn’t a guy who risks arrest repeatedly to invade women’s space comply with measures which make his activities legal?? It’s considerably less inconvenient to put on a skirt and some lippy than to be arrested and processed, make bail, go before a judge, etc. etc." 

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Of course they don’t. Making a formerly illegal behavior legal seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior. Duh! The truth is that guys do this all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females. 

Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces: Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces. Install double mirrors to view female spaces. Drill holes in walls to peep at women’s spaces. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts. Risking arrest –and repeat arrest- sneaking into women’s restrooms. Dress up as and try to pass as female. Claim they are female. Try to pass laws permitting men who claim they are female to legally enter spaces where females do not want men. Try to pass laws that state that females don’t actually exist. Force law enforcement and media outlets to report male crimes against women as woman-on-woman crime, if the male is diagnosed with GID." 

 

So what does all of this have to do with same-sex marriage? Thus far I have demonstrated that in order to accept the premise that same-sex marriage should be legalized, one will also have to accept that there are no inherent differences (besides mere body-parts) between males and females. One must also presume that males and females don’t have different natures, thought processes, and behavioral patterns that lead both sexes to be better predisposed to specific essential parenting traits due to their biological sex. 

If one thinks that there are no inherent differences between males/females then, one also must admit that it doesn't matter for a child to have a biological male and biological female as parents, just any two loving, responsible people with parenting skills will do.

 

Thus since there are no distinctions between males and females, then a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man, a mother can become a father, a husband can become a wife, an uncle can become an aunt, a grandmother can become a grandfather. More importantly, a child doesn't need a male parent or a female parent in particular because both sexes don’t offer anything unique and essential to the child “in principle”. Both sexes are interchangeable.  Therefore, if nothing is different then what is the difference if a non-op or a pre-op male uses a female restroom, locker room, or rape shelter; or is included on a woman’s athletics team as I demonstrated above?
 

III. The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument 

The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument articulates that the central problem is not that the sexual union of 2 males or 2 females can’t produce children. LGBT households still raise children and produce children in other ways (raising children from a previous heterosexual relationship, adoption, surrogacy, IVF, gay step-parenting, 2 lesbian biological parent procedures). The central problem is that LGBT households do both raise and produce children. It's how they produce and how they are situated as parents that poses such a lethal threat to the institution of marriage. Since Lesbian and Gay couples cannot procreate within their own sexual union, they always have to have a 3rd party or sometimes 4 parties involved in having a child "in principle." In the case of Gay and Lesbian families where children are from a previous heterosexual relationships, a strong trend is growing where the non-biological parent wants equal parenting status as the biological parents. 
 

The central problem has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex couples are good parents or not, but rather the fact that the architecture of the family institution of marriage and divorce has been designed, tailored, and developed over 200 years in the U.S. specifically for children in the context of heterosexual, monogamous relationships. Moreover, the vast majority of children are both created and raised by Non LGBT parents. 

 

 

Regardless if one thinks marriage is no longer about children, the fact still remains that the family institution of marriage is designed and still primarily functions as a safety-net to protect children. The architecture of the institution of marriage and family law isn't designed or tailored for issues that arise in same-sex couple’s households and divorces, or for the new dimensions of bisexual, transsexual, and transgender households that raise children and their divorces.

The present architecture for the institution of marriage is designed in the framework of heterosexual, monogamous, static gender identities, static sex identities, static sexual orientations, not homosexual orientations, or bisexual orientations, transgender identities, transsexual identities, or for situations in which three or more parents are used to create a child “in principle.” Such a law (three or more equal, legal parents) defeats the purpose of monogamy and there isn't really any reason why there cannot be group marriage or polyamorous marriage, especially since bisexuality is being nationally recognized.

A. Biology on Trial in Same-Sex Custody Cases

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if there is no legal primacy given to a responsible, biological parent in three way, gay and lesbian custody battles? For example in Australia when “a sperm-donor/hands-on dad has his parental rights terminated in favor of those of a lesbian mother with no biological relationship to the child"?  

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a gay sperm donor (to a lesbian couple) who played an active role in his child’s life, doesn't get acknowledged by law as a parent and therefore cannot see his child because the lesbian couple moved far away? 
 

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a sperm donor decides not to pay child support to a lesbian parent in the event that the lesbian and her partner broke up, and when no doctor was involved in the insemination process (which would have discounted the sperm donor as a parent)?  What if since the sperm donor had to pay child support he decided that he wanted  get visitation or custody rights over the child, but the courts denied his request?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a bisexual woman who had a child through IVF in her lesbian relationship, broke up with her lesbian partner, started a romantic relationship with the original sperm donor, attempted with the sperm donor to get full parental rights of the child, and the sperm donor didn’t get parental rights, but the non-biological ex-lesbian partner of the bisexual got parental rights instead? 


If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a man tells his wife that he wants a divorce, and then immediately marries another man and wins full custody over the child? In this incident a judge ruled in the man and his same-sex spouses' favor for full custody over the man's child because the same-sex married couple had more money and had the weight of a two parent household against the less financially capable single mother who was previously a stay at home mom. Since men make more than women in general, and gay men have high median incomes, the discarded mother was easily financially overcome in the family court.


If nothing is different, then what is the difference in a case regarding 4 homosexual parents in which a gay man and his lover took the lesbian mother of his children and her partner to court for access rights, and the gay biological father only gets the status of a secondary parent?

"The couples met after the women placed an advert in The Pink Paper in July 1999 looking for ‘a gay man or couple who would like to start a family with a lesbian couple’. The men replied, saying ‘we would love to be father and stepfather’. After the birth of the first child, the couples maintained friendly relations for several years, but ‘it all went wrong’ in 2008 when they fell into dispute over the children. The judgment quotes a social worker who said the older daughter was caught in ‘a horrendous tangle of emotion and conflict that exists between these adults. The girl is being made to carry the responsibility for the failure of the adults in this system to overcome the conflicts between them.’ Mr Justice Hedley said there was ‘widespread concern at the welfare of the children’. He ruled that the two women should be regarded as ‘primary parents’ with the main responsibility for bringing up the girls, but the men should be regarded as ‘secondary parents’."

 

If nothing is different, then what is the difference when a man who was once married to his wife for 20 years, comes to the conclusion that he is gay, gets divorced from his wife with whom he had a 12-year-old son, and his ex-wife tries to deny him overnight visitation because his cohabitating partner is gay and she thinks that her 12-year-old boy will have a difficult time understanding his father’s sudden switch of sexual orientation and cohabitation with a same-sex partner?  Is it in the child’s best interest for his father with a recent drug-addicted past to keep him overnight when he cohabits with a same-sex partner, especially when the child is accustomed to seeing his father with his mother? 

 

Moreover, if Arkansas was a state that legalized same-sex marriage and the father was married to his same-sex partner, would this be an issue? What are the negative impacts on the institution of marriage from cases like this? Most importantly, even if Arkansas legalized same-sex marriage, and this particular situation wouldn’t be an issue, the question remains: “is it in the best interest of the child who has known his father as being in a heterosexual relationship with his mother, to stay overnight in the context of his married father’s house?" 

I ask this question assuming that the father’s companion is a harmless person, but yet at the same time emphasizing the child and the child’s understanding of the situation.

Bizarre situations like this which are unique to (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and transgender unions) will continue to arise in the court systems, and family law will change for ALL in order to compensate LGBT families.

B. Three Legal and Equal Parents Laws

Some courts have tried to tap dance around these issues by making three or more legal and equal parents, such as in Pennsylvania, Florida, and California. 

Three or more equal, legal parents is something that is "in principle" a homosexual circumstance due to the fact that gays and lesbians "always" need a 3rd party and sometimes even 4 parties to have a child. The bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California was a reflection of a circumstance that arises when things go bad between homosexual couples that have children. 

Guro Hansen Helskog made an insightful statement when he claimed that “Parents used to have lots of children - now children have lots of parents.” Indeed, as families in Western countries have less children more laws are being put into action that give a child more than two parents.  Family scholar Elizabeth Marquardt addressed the 3 or more parent laws by stating: 

"Supporters of the rulings argue that if two parents are good for children, aren’t three better? True, some three-parent petitions are brought by adults who appear deeply committed to the child in question. In the Ontario case, the two women and the father all seem devoted to the boy. But in Pennsylvania, the sperm donor, whom the children called 'Papa,' was ordered to pay child support over his objections, and the lesbian co-mothers have already ended their relationship." 

What is the harm if other American courts follow Pennsylvania’s example? For one thing, three-parent situations typically involve a couple and a third person living separately, meaning the child will get shuffled between homes, and this raises problems […] Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults? Finally, why should courts stop at assigning children only three parents? Some situations involve a couple who wants the child, the sperm donor, the egg donor and the gestational surrogate who carries the pregnancy. If we allow three legal parents, why not five?"

Family scholar Jane Adolphe addresses the 3 or more parents laws by noting: 

"If two parents are better than one, then shouldn’t three be better than two? 'Legal parent' becomes an umbrella notion for various subsets of parents, all stakeholders with no preference for one individual or set: natural/biological parents; adoptive parents, step parents, grandparents; social parents; psychological parents; intentional parents, gestational parent, sperm donor parent, egg donor parent and so forth. With the redefinition of marriage and the separation between biology and bond, the trend toward multiple parents is legitimized."

Adolphe continues: 

"Adoption laws, previously an exception to the natural family and natural parenthood, now become a discrete set of rules unmoored from their foundation. This translates into the rejection of the general principles that biology and relationship ought to be in the same two persons and that a child ought to have one set of parents. The end result is that natural or biological parents become just one of many stakeholders in a child’s life based on the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. This is a marked departure from the principle that primary care rests with the natural family (including the extended family) which assistance and support from others based on the principle of subsidiarity (eg religious, Communities, neighbors, friends, and State).

These dramatic changes are driven by a rhetoric of adult rights, spearheaded by the needs of same-sex couples, without any serious discussion about whether this is good for children."Why is this so? How is this so? As previously noted, the adoption system has been developed as an exception to the natural family. The underlying assumption is that biological parents are more likely to better care for their own children. Therefore, before adoption is possible, parental consent is required and the prospective new parents must meet requisite standards of fitness. Since, it is better for children to be raised in stable, two parent, married families, preference has been given to placing children in this environment."

Lawyer Nancy Polikoff explains her view of the new multiple parent law: 

"This statutory authorization, however, is most likely to impact heterosexuals, given how much divorce and remarriage there is. The provision will mean that if both the custodial and the noncustodial parent agree, then the custodial parent's new husband will be able to adopt the child without terminating the rights of the noncustodial parent. I have been advocating such a possibility for years, but this is the first law explicitly sanctioning such arrangements. The divorce rate of second marriages is at least as high as that of first marriages, which means that down the road we will be looking at multiple-parent custody and visitation arrangements on a regular basis."

What Polikoff does not mention is that although this law will impact heterosexuals the most (which is not a good thing), this option was previously not open to heterosexuals and is now available as a result of a common situation regarding how same-sex couples are situated in relation to their children "in principle". Hetero step parenting is not a situation that is "in principle" for hetero unions. Thus, the children of hetero unions including step parents will suffer the most (think custody disputes) as a result of this law which was initiated for a lesbian couple, by a gay lawyer. I elaborate on how including same-sex couples into the family law of the institution of marriage has already and will continue to negatively impact hetero families and children in the third paper of this series in section III. How LGBT Couples are Already Impacting the Institution of Marriage)

C. Other Harms That the  Inclusion of Same-Sex Couples Into the Family Institution of Marriage Will Hurt Heterosexual Families, Marriages, and Divorces

Professor Douglas Allen answers that question by making the following points:

"Once legal decisions on these issues are made, the question is, what impact will they have on the elephant in the room: the vast majority of heterosexual marriages? After all, all three relationships (heterosexual, gay, lesbian) will be regulated by the same law. If we return to the theory that marriage is an efficient institution designed around the needs of heterosexual couples, then only one conclusion follows: To the extent marriage is changed to accommodate the demands of same-sex couples, these changes will hurt heterosexual marriages.

To the extent changes are not made, same-sex couples will find marriage laws unsatisfactory and inefficient for their needs. As a practical matter, it seems unlikely that same-sex couples would be ignored by the courts, and courts will recognize the different types of families along the spectrum of cases. Once the constraint of a definition of marriage based on biology is removed, these changes will occur with little notice, and minimal immediate effect.

Issues will come up, courts will struggle with how to manage them, the common law will evolve, but the sun will still rise the next day. But the bottom line is that these new common laws will apply to heterosexual couples covered under the same family law, and over time the loopholes and areas of poor fit will be exploited by husbands or wives seeking to better themselves at the expense of other members of the family. The value of marriage as an institution will fall, fewer people will marry, more will seek private methods to protect themselves from ex post marriage exploitation, and the final result will be lower fertility rates and more children raised in single-parent homes. It is this feedback that presents the fundamental danger to heterosexual marriage."

*Professor Allen continues: 

“It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage, contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with “legal” parent.

A legal parent, like one of the partners within a same-sex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating “legal” parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages.” 

I provide additional support for Dr. Allen's argument in the second paper of this series in "Part VI Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect" and in the third paper of this series in Part  III. How LGBT Couples are Already Impacting the Institution of Marriage

 

IV. What About the 1,138 Federal and State Benefits, Protections, Rights, and Responsibilities That LGBT Couples and Families Don't Receive Because They Cannot be Married?

I will start off by saying that although LGBT families are radically different than traditional families, they are still families. Even though LGBT families are radically different, they still count and they will continue to have children and raise children whether anyone thinks that LGBT parents are not as good as hetero parents or not. That being said, the over 1,138 Federal and State Benefits, Protections, Rights, and Responsibilities should be given to LGBT couples, however, LGBT couples should NOT be grafted into the Heterosexual marriage institution and family law to receive those benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities. As I have argued earlier in this paper, grafting LGBT couples and families into the family law of the marriage institution will hurt heterosexual couples and families since the marriage institution will be reshaped to better fit LGBT couples and unions. The result of grafting the LGBT couples into the marriage institution that has been tailor fitted for over 200 years to best fit heterosexual unions will no longer fit heterosexual unions anymore as a result of LGBT marriage. Moreover if any of the rights, responsibilities, and protections collide in the event that a child is taken in custody from one of his/her biological parents for the child's other biological parent and the same-sex spouse of that partner, then the rights of the child should prevail. That right is to at least be in a shared custody between his/her two biological parents. In addition, such a collision of protections would strip away legal protections from the excluded biological parent and fail to protect the child from a state of being deprived of that excluded biological parent.
 

Furthermore, those Rights, Responsibilities, Benefits, and Protections don't define, reflect, or reveal what marriage is, they are just given on the platform of marriage to help and protect those couples and their families.


X. Conclusion

I will conclude this paper by quoting from a piece written by former Trial Court Judge John M. Smoot:

“In the United States, we were fortunate to inherit a marriage tradition of monogamy with a strong stigma against divorce. Did it work for “everyone?” No. Did it work for our society as a whole? Yes. Was it beneficial for “most” children? Yes. Over the course of twenty-one years as a judge in Boston, I granted thousands of divorces and heard thousands of cases involving children of unmarried parents. Yes, there were adults and children who benefited from divorce just as there were children of single parent families who did fine or excelled. Overall, however, the revolution that encouraged “pleasure, freedom, [and] self-expression” brought an immense amount of pain and misery. Was it bad for everyone? No. Was it bad for millions? Yes.

Social policy and cultural change have an impact on all of us. And clearly, the impact is not always for the good. Now, we are transforming marriage by eliminating its inherent gender distinctions. Now that television shows, movies, books, songs, the educational system, and most of our other cultural influences are promoting gay life, marriage is the last institution in which gender matters. Marriage, although damaged by the sexual revolution, still carries residual power to bring men and women together and bind them to their children. Eliminating gender removes a key ingredient in helping children recognize this."