Societal and Institutional Impacts of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. and Abroad by Andre Jenkins

The overall negative impact of gay-marriage on society (societal effects) will appear before the overall negative impact of gay marriage on the institution of marriage (institutional effects).

Since each country has different laws governing their marriage institution, and have different forms and options of non-marital unions, then each country will have its own unique institutional effects as a result of gay marriage. Institutional effects of gay marriage will eventually add to the already present societal effects of SSM (same-sex "marriage"). Moreover, each country has different sizes, populations, media power, and influence, hence some countries will see negative manifestations of the impact of SSM faster than those that are less populated and have a weaker media influence. This is and will continue to be so even if a country legalized SSM before another country.

In some countries such as Spain, Canada, and Belgium there have already been negative institutional impacts as a result of legalizing SSM. All countries and states have had immediate negative societal impacts as a result of legalizing SSM. Part of the reason for this is the conditions that gave rise to SSM in those specific countries and states in the first place only became stronger and manifested into different negative forms.

SSM is both a cause and an effect. Moreover, SSM is an effect of multiple causes and a cause of multiple effects. Each country has different specific multiple causes that gave rise to SSM, and have different specific effects as a result of SSM. However, the negative impacts that all countries and states that have legalized SSM have in common is a blurring the lines of biological-sex distinctions and an overthrow of religious freedoms. 

The manifestations of this annihilation of biological-sex distinctions have been seen in the form of negative societal effects such as the acknowledgment of trans-gender identity rights (non-operational trans people, ie a male can be legally acknowledged as a woman) that trample over the rights of females, sharp increases in pre-teen children undergoing gender therapy and hormone replacement treatment, and the banning of same-sex gatherings (all women's gatherings).

 

My aim in this paper is NOT to analyze ALL the countries and states that have legalized SSM, but rather I will analyze the negative impacts on the earliest countries that legalized SSM such as Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada, and Massachusetts. In addition, I also examine how SSM has already negatively impacted the institution of marriage through the opening up of new "marriage-like options" that were created and tailored specifically to the needs of LGBT unions and families, and the opening of 3 or more parent options to heterosexual families that were also created due to the needs of LGBT unions and families. I then demonstrate how opening up those options to hetero families weakens and has weakened the institution of marriage and hurts children.

My evaluation concludes although the sky has not fallen yet as a result of legalizing SSM, there are presently cracks in the sky and more cracks are appearing especially in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts. (For the readers that want to jump to my evaluation of the negative impact of SSM on other countries, scroll down to Part IV of this paper.)


II. Same Game, Different Players?

It has been argued by SSM activists that love and relationships are the same game for both hetero and homosexual couples, but the only difference is the players (the biological sex of the players). Hence they state “it’s the same game, but different players.” SSM advocates then proceed to elaborate on their analogy by stating that both hetero and homosexual couples are two adults who love each other, are committed to each other, possibly share finances, live with each other, get into fights, breakup, get back together again, cheat on one another, etc.

 

SSM advocates therefore conclude that since hetero and homosexual relationships have all of the above factors in common, then it should follow that homosexual couples are essentially the same as hetero couples and should be allowed to get married just as heterosexual couples are allowed to get married. Viewed from this angle, the differences in players between the two groups (homo and hetero) don’t matter. 

However, what the SSM advocates leave out is the age-old problem of why marriage was institutionalized in all human societies in the first place. That problem is children. The inclusion of children into the game changes the whole game and makes the differences between the players matter.  Before a skeptic raises a hasty rebuttal, let me make it clear that LGBT couples have children and are parents in at least 6 ways:  1) IVF 2) Surrogacy 3) From a previous heterosexual relationship 4) Adoption 5) 2 Lesbian Biological medical procedures and 6) Step-parenting. Moreover, LGBT couples will keeping having children (Gaby Boom) and are now pressured and expected to have children by their families and communities. Furthermore, since there is a gayby boom,  gay male couples are the Number One demographic to be targeted by American surrogacy agencies.

Another common rebuttal that must be countered is that the government doesn't require a couple to have children in order for them to get married. In response to that statement let me make it clear that the government incentivizes and recognizes marriages without requiring upfront that a couple have children for at least 10 reasons: 1) couples who once thought they didn’t want children end up having them 2) some previously thought infertile couples a) end up having children b) become fertile through fertility treatment 3) an old man can still impregnate a fertile woman that he is married to 4) heterosexual couples are ordered towards and tend to have children “in principle.”

5) The government has no way of knowing  (it won’t invade the privacy of a couple by giving them bi-annual fertility tests or question a couple if they are having sex) if a couple is fertile or not. 6) a man can get a woman pregnant even after having a vasectomy 7) “In Principle” men/women are fertile and have children, as an “exception to the general rule,” men/women can be infertile and not have children. 8) Procreation is NOT a condition of marriage. Marriage is assumed to be a normatively procreative sexual union symbolised by the act of coitus. It is not necessary for a marriage to be procreative, merely to be indicative of procreation (i.e. coitus).

9) Swedish surgeons have successfully transplanted wombs donated from relatives into nine women and they will soon try to become pregnant, thus such an option will be open to women who were not born with a uterus or had a vasectomy due to cervical cancer.

Regardless if a gay marriage advocate thinks that now, love is the centerpiece of marriage and not children, or that our society doesn’t need to have children; the fact is that couples will have children (both hetero and homosexual) and children need protection even more than the two adults in a relationship. There isn’t any way of getting around the children factor. (I've already listed several ways LGBT couples have children and how they are expected to have children like hetero couples)

10) The problem of children is why some heterosexual unions are legalized and why some heterosexual unions are prohibited. One such example is that of incestuous couples. Since incestuous heterosexual couples (brother/sister, first cousins of child bearing age, etc) can bear children that will most likely turn out with birth defects, they are prohibited from marrying.

Again, procreation in any form is already  a legal qualification for marriage and is codified in laws restricting marriage between close kin, or those wishing to enter into polygamous unions. Those laws only exist because of the public's acknowledgement that marriage is a sexual union, and reproduction can and does occur, often with the natural result of child-bearing.
 
  Peter Gould elaborates on this point by noting the following:

“So far so good, but now assuming we have equal marriage and that we have removed from our underlying presumption of marriage the necessity for normative procreation, let us see how we now handle other relationships’ claim for marriage.

Let’s begin with consensual incest. Though it is unpleasant for some to accept, the fact remains that some family members have consensual, loving, permanent, faithful, stable sexual relationships with other family members. At the moment these relationships are forbidden in law from being solemnized as marriages, chiefly because of the understanding that such sexual relationships produce procreative challenges in the genetic makeup of the children.

There is no other good reason for such marriages to be forbidden – one might claim that there are particular emotional dynamics that mean that the “love” in such relationships is not genuine love, but that rather begs the question as to whether one is able to judge the love of another couple.

With one breath we are declaring (by permitting same-sex couples to marry) that the assumption that marriage is a procreative union should be erased from our definition of marriage. With another breath however we are making a judgement of the validity of a relationship to be granted the status of marriage on the basis that it is procreative.

By banning incestuous couples from marrying we are saying that the fact that a relationship is procreative is vital to deciding whether it should or shouldn’t be allowed the benefits of marriage, but by permitting same-sex couples to marry we are saying that the ability to procreate (or not) should not be a factor in determining whether a couple can marry.

Indeed, if marriage should not be about procreation and specific sex lives, why can we deny a couple the right to marry because of their specific sex life? Incestuous sex is currently illegal in England and Wales under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but if we change the presumptions behind marriage to erase the understanding of procreation to be important for such relationships, why should the law assume a couple are having sex or a particular kind of sex?

Put it another way – if the law on incest is about recognising that the State has an interest in the procreative lives of its citizens, why should it be offensive that that State promotes a particular kind of procreative union (other-sex marriage) as a particular relationship different to other sexual unions?"

 

One may ask that since I admitted that LGBT couples have children and raise children, then why should LGBT couples not be allowed to get married? How does the inclusion of children into the game change the whole game and makes the differences between the players matter? I explain that whole issue in the first paper of this series "Why Same-Sex "Marriage" is Like Opening Pandora's Box"(Keep in mind that I’m aware that LGBT couples have been raising children for centuries and some gay men and women have lived “straight lives,” had children, and raise children from previous heterosexual unions).

 

III. How LGBT Couples are Already Impacting the Institution of Marriage

I provide additional details on the specific negative institutional impacts of SSM on heterosexual couples in the first and second papers of this series.  In her paper entitled: “The Future Impact of Same-Sex Marriage: More Questions Than Answers” Professor Nan D. Hunter makes the observations that the acknowledgement of LGBT families have created new marriage alternatives that were created primarily for LGBT families but as a byproduct,  have been opened up to heterosexual couples and families as well.  Due to heterosexuals being the large majority, it has been mostly heterosexual couples that have taken advantage of these new marriage alternatives that occurred as a result of acknowledging LGBT families. 

Professor Hunter states:   

“In considering the prospect of legal change, the beginning point is to acknowledge that regardless of the ultimate fate of same-sex marriage as a nationally recognized status, lesbian and gay Americans have already changed family law in multiple ways. Two developments stand out as the most significant for legal doctrine.

First, adult partners seeking legal recognition have fueled the creation of new legal statuses. States have created both marriage equivalents, in which the new status carries all or virtually all the material incidents of marriage, lacking only the name, and marriage alternatives, which include significantly fewer marriage- like rights and responsibilities. The extent to which these categories continue after same-sex couples gain access to marriage will depend on whether a sufficient demand for them exists from both gay and straight couples who do not want to marry.

Professor Hunter continues by describing the second major impact that LGBT families and unions have had on the institution of marriage by pointing out that when a child is born to one individual in a same-sex couple, both same sex partners are listed as parents on the child’s birth certificate:

“Second, parenting law has expanded to recognize that both of a child’s two legal parents can be of the same sex. The former universal rule was that only one partner in a same-sex couple could adopt children because there could be only one mother or one father. Today, that rule has been replaced in many states by a policy of allowing two persons of the same sex to adopt.  Similarly, when a child is born to one partner in a same sex marriage or other registered relationship, marriage-equivalent laws often provide that both same sex partners will be listed as the two parents on the birth certificate.” 

 

In thirteen states plus the District of Columbia, the law has taken both of these steps away from traditional family law. In these states, the law both recognizes either marriage or a marriage equivalent for same-sex couples and allows a gay or lesbian couple to adopt a child together as the two parents. One-third of the U.S. population lives in these fourteen jurisdictions, which collectively comprise a culturally and legally distinct family-law regime for same-sex couples.

Predicting the next set of important legal changes is hazardous. For the future, ongoing evolution almost certainly is the only reliable forecast about same-sex marriage, family law, and the relationship between them. In that spirit, I pose three sets of questions to consider as the legal structures continue to change. Each question is addressed in its own subsection below.”

Professor Hunter continues by noting that heterosexual couples now have access to a new menu of marriage-equivalent and marriage-alternative relationship options as a result of claims that emerged from LGBT “equality” claims:

“Both common law marriage and the case law that began with Marvin v. Marvin originated in claims presented by heterosexual partners. By contrast, the formalized status categories of domestic partner and civil union grew out of demands for recognition by same-sex couples, often in the wake of courts’ rejections of the same kinds of tort or property claims that had begun to be accepted when pressed by unmarried heterosexual partners.

 For different-sex couples, access to the menu of marriage-equivalent and marriage-alternative relationship options that have emerged from LGBT equality claims varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Ten states and the District of Columbia still permit common law marriage. Four jurisdictions allow both different- and same-sex couples to opt for a nonmarital status. In two others, different-sex couples can obtain the nonmarital status only if one partner is above a certain age.

In the remainder of states, different-sex couples are allowed to register their relationship only as a marriage.” If one is analyzing the preferences of different-sex couples, the data so far indicate a very strong preference for marriage over alternative-status categories. If one is analyzing the composition of the group of people who elect a nonmarital status, it appears that, at least in some locations, a significant portion consists of different-sex couples."

In the following quote, Hunter poses new questions regarding the possibility of new post-marriage unions and how those unions will  impact family law:

"Will we start to see more formal “postmarriage unions” tailored to the concerns of persons who have children or property from prior marriages? Would adoption of such laws create a new relationship status defined not only by age but also effectively by socio-economic status? What set of legal rights and responsibilities would such laws entail? Will AARP become a major player when state legislatures consider nonmarital status laws? Will the cultural trend to specialization and narrow casting dominate family law? Will different states with different demographic profiles enact other niche relationship laws?

An increase in the number of jurisdictions offering more formal legal recognition of nonmarital different-sex relationships would be consistent with the broader trend toward greater variety in the patterns and norms of American family life. It would also have a major impact on family law."

Professor Hunter concludes her paper by stating: "Same-sex marriage is a new family form that seems destined to gain increasing legal and social acceptance. Same-sex marriage and marriage alternatives will both produce more change in family law and continue to reflect underlying shifts in gender norms and social practices across the population. These house-hold forms remain very much a set of works in progress, “incomplete institutions” in both law and culture. That very incompleteness, however, also heightens the possibility that the regulation of same-sex relationships will influence the law governing all family structures in ways that we cannot yet foresee."

In reflection on Hunter's findings, heterosexual couples now have and will have access to a new menu of martial options, parenting options, marriage-equivalents and marriage-alternative relationship options as a result of claims that have and will emerge from LGBT equality demands and situations that “in principle” reflect how LGBT families are situated.  

One such example of this includes the 3 or more legal and equal parents law that Gov. Jerry Brown of California enacted in response to a circumstance that dealt with how LGBT couples are situated “in principle.” The circumstance being described here is there being 3 or more parents of a child in same-sex unions “in principle.” Such a circumstance is only an “exception” in heterosexual unions. 

William Bigelow goes more into detail on the circumstances surrounding this issue: 

"One of the catalysts for the bill was a case in which one lesbian in a relationship was impregnated by a man, and later fought with her lesbian lover. One woman was jailed and the other went to the hospital, and the daughter wound up in foster care because the sperm donor did not have parental rights."

The negative impact of new marital options, parenting options, marriage equivalent and alternative options (that have emerged as a result and reflection of how LGBT families are situated) will have on heterosexual families and the marriage institution, have and will be seen in the forms of three-way custody disputes, children being brought up in unstable environments, less marriages, and less children etc.

In other words, the new menu of options that are now open to hetero families that were originally created as a result of how LGBT families are situated, will be a poor fit for those hetero families and unions because LGBT (especially transgender and transsexual families) families are very different than hetero families.

Attorney John Klar echoes these points by stating: “Biology counts, even if gender orientation does not. It counts for all children, even if their parents are gay or transgender or flip-flopping or “inquiring.” Monogamy is about children before it is about fidelity. Fidelity itself is about what is best for children.”

IV. A Brief Evaluation of the Impact of SSM on International Countries

A. Impact of Same-sex marriage in Spain

   

In his Report on the Impact of the Spanish Same-Sex Marriage Act in National Law, Dr. Jose Luis Bazan listed 11 main negative impacts of SSM on the institution of marriage in Spain:

1) Spanish Same-Sex Union Act (“SSUA”) has changed the public order (“ordre publique”) of the Spanish Law, especially Family Law.

2) SUUA was rejected by the Senate, criticized by the Spanish Council of State, declared unconstitutional by the Spanish Royal Academy of Legislation and Jurisprudence and the General Council of the Judiciary. SUUA has been appealed (decision still pending) before the Spanish Constitutional Court.

3) SSUA changes terminological and legal concepts related to marriage and family. SSUA is the legal base of Order of the Ministry of Justice Nr 568/2006, of February, the 8th9, which “neutralizes” the different sexual condition of man and women based on nature, using a new terminology applied to marriage and the family as follows the terms husband” (“marido”) and “wife” (“mujer”) are replaced in the Civil Registry and official documents by “spouse A” (“cónyuge A”) and “spouse B” (“cónyuge B”).“Father” (“padre”) and “mother” (“madre”) are replaced by “parent A” (“progenitor A”) and “parent B” (“progenitor A”). This is not at all a merely nominal change.

*The changes introduced are not merely nominal; they suggest a new concept of
person in which sex would be our primary and natural condition, but not the final gender to be decided by our free and personal election. In fact, from that perspective, there are two sexes, but five genders (including transsexuals from man to woman and vice versa).

*In Spain, transsexuality is not only a legal possibility, but medical treatment is even paid in some regions by public budget. As a result of Act 3/2005, the new transsexual gender and the new surname accorded to it are recorded in the Civil Registry, and all official documents mention them. The change of sex is, except in some cases, secret to third parties, and no information about it is included in the new documents.

4) SSUA enlarges the concept of marriage, its requirements and effects.

*Marriage does not ground on the natural opposite sex condition of man and woman. The concept of marriage is then diluted and it expresses any legal union based exclusively in the will of persons to live together. From this point of view—even though not yet introduced in Spanish Law—no reasons can be argued against polygamy, as some legal authors remark.

* The diversity of human groups with children (couples married and not married, same-sex or opposite-sex unions, and even singles) are all together called “families” or even “family models”.

5) SSUA adds new legal house-working obligations based on a radical concept of equality in family life.

6) SSUA implies the full recognition of equality rights with respect to succession (inheritance rights), adoption, social benefits, nullity of marriage, separation and divorce, and others. These equal rights are all based in the strict and radical application of the principle of Article 66 Spanish Civil Code: “Spouses are equal in rights and duties”.

7) Every woman is able to use the assisted reproduction technology “irrespective of her marital status and sexual orientation”. This means that homosexuals, bisexuals or transsexuals can, as heterosexuals women, be inseminated. As a matter of law, to be married or to have a couple is completely irrelevant.

*From a legal point of view, human reproduction is no longer necessarily linked to a natural difference of sexes in a couple, but to a radical free and sovereign will of the spouses.

*The case of the first Spanish transsexual (from woman to man) pregnant with twins was widely reported in all mass media, shocking the public opinion.

*Spanish and International Press have denounced Spain to have become a paradise for touristic “beach and assisted reproduction” for lesbians, especially in the Spanish Mediterranean Coast (Barcelona and Valencia).

8) Joint adoption is legal with respect to homosexuals who are “married”.

*Spain recognizes the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that adoption is not a right and that deny adoption to gay discrimination is not a ilegal23 (Frette c /. France24). But the European Court changed its jurisprudence accepting adoption by homosexual (Judgment EB c /. France) and declared the existence of sexual orientation discrimination.

* Two gay men "married" under Spanish law were authorized by the Ministry of Justice to register in the Civil Code "his" two sons born in San Diego (California) to a surrogate mother. This activity is illegal in Spain25 so it was a legal fraud. But the two men have become legal "parents" of children as a result of the resolution of the Directorate General of Registries and Notaries 2575/2008 of 18 February 200926.

*Spain has a high ratio of international adoptions of children from foreign countries (primarily from China, Ukraine, Russia and Latin-America).29 Most of those countries do not allow their citizens to be adopted in Spain by homosexual couples, as a way of protecting the best interest of the child. But Spanish Law authorises the adoption of foreign children by homosexuals, even a joint one if they are “married”. International adoption is higher than national one. According to the Ministry of Education, Social Policy and Sports, the number of foreign minors adopted (from 2003 to 2007) were 23.035.

9) The compulsory subject introduced in Primary and Secondary levels named “Education for Citizenship” (EFC) includes issues concerning sexual and emotional education and gender mainstreaming. Even though strongly rejected by a large part of Spanish society (52,000 conscientious objectors to EFC) and other significant entities, Supreme Court does not recognize the right of parents to object to the EFC curriculum. The cases are pending before the Constitutional Court.

10) Homosexual “marriages” are in some cases and territories entitled to parental leave (“Permiso de paternidad”). They are fully recognised as entitled to Widow’s Pension (“Pensión de viudedad”) and Public Social Security.

11) Penal Code considers as a crime some offences against sexual orientation. Vagueness of those provisions does not offer sufficient legal certainty to exclude, for example, the freedom of expression to criticize the morality of homosexual relationships or the unfairness of same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexuals.

 *Although they have not been frequently used, the political, social and media pressure against dissidence is increasing its intensity. New legal reforms are expected to reinforce the gender ideology in the public sphere, and it is not seen as lack of reasonableness a possible use of SPC (Spanish Penal Code) against persons and institutions actively opposed to same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality

*One of the main targets of homosexual social activism is the Catholic Church and Bishops because of their declarations on the immorality of homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage. One of the groups called “Colegas” presented a report to the General Public Prosecutor Office (“Fiscalía General del Estado”) against the Catholic Church, trying to promote criminal prosecution against some statements of the Bishops. No prosecution has yet been carried out by the Public Prosecutor against any Catholic Bishop or priest for that reason."

Upon reviewing Dr. Bazan's main conclusions the following numbers in his list are the most important 3,4,7,8, and 11. Number 3 is very important because it opens the door to confusing biological sex with gender and then providing legislation that allows people who identify as any multitude of new genders to use private spaces and services given to people of the opposite biological sex to their identified psychological gender. Moreover, to atomize (reduce) the terms mother and father to parent, makes a false claim on reality, which is that "in principle" opposite sex parents aren't the same, they consists of a male and a female who are different and bring different essential qualities to raising a child. To enact a change in the law that atomizes such terms for a very small minority overthrows the meaning of those terms for the majority. Why should the rights of a small minority trample over the rights of the majority?

Number 4 is crucial because by legally acknowledging all families as "the same" (transsexual families, transgendered families, lesbian families, gay families, bisexual families, hetero families), the law puts all of these families "which are radically different" under the same umbrella in family law within the institution of marriage. Such a move would hurt the baseline majority families (heteros) the most because family law will be changed to better fit the new family forms which will in turn making family law a bad fit for hetero families.

Number 7 is important because opening up  assisted reproduction technology “irrespective of marital status and sexual orientation will lead to children having only one parent, or no parents of the opposite or the same sex as that of the child. 

Number 8 is a human rights and moral argument in that gay couples shouldn't be using foreign women as easy bake ovens to have the child that they will later adopt.

Number 11 is a negative societal and human rights impact in that the proper protections for religious individuals and institutions have not been established in light of same-sex marriage.

Sociologist Dr. Patricia Morgan found additional negative institutional impacts to the Spanish marriage institution as a result of legalizing SSM in Spain which include the negative institutional impacts such as a decline in marriages and an increase in divorce rates as a result of creating options that trivialize marriage:

“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.

Spain saw a pronounced downwards acceleration in its marriage decline following the introduction of same-sex marriage. This started to abate a little by 2009 – perhaps due to more same sex unions being formalized in the event of a centre right government terminating the arrangement (it has not). The annual number of marriages fell by over 14,600 over the first three years (2005-2007) in which same sex couples were able to marry. For the next three years (2008-10), the annual fall was 34,000.

The descent is quite  precipitous, since Spanish marriage rates (per thousand population) have been reasonably  steady compared to some other countries – at 5.9 in 1980: 5.7 in 1990 and 5.4 in 2000 before the plunge to 3.8 in 2009. This includes the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who got married in Spain between 2005 and the end of 2010 (when 2.1 per cent of marriages were between people of the same sex, with 2,216 female). The State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and bisexuals (ELGBT) believes that the actual number is 23,000, since not all have been recorded. 

At the same time as Spain’s socialist government introduced same sex marriage it also brought in legislation known as the ‘express divorce’ bill, to make the process easier and faster. Again, we have the association between the drive for same sex marriage in the context of a general libertarianism which trivializes and is fundamentally hostile to marriage. The legal change eliminated the need for couples to be physically separated for a period before legal proceedings could begin. In the following year (2006), 126,952 divorces were registered in 2006, a 74.3% increase on the previous year. The sharpest rise was seen in divorces between those who had been married for less than a year: up 330.6%.”

Statistician Peter Ould demonstrates how the inclusion of SSM into Spain's marriage franchise led to a new trend of decreasing hetero marriage rates:

“This tells us that the presence of same-sex marriage in any year, regardless of the year, reduces the change in other-sex marriages by over -15,000. That’s easily enough to move from growth to decline. We are 99.7% confident this is a real effect. When we then try to enter in the year itself we don’t get a significant p-value. This means that we reject the hypothesis that there is a change in the number of other-sex marriages that is a general trend over time. Put simply, this means that the annual change is connected to the introduction of same-sex marriage and NOT a general long-term trend (as some have argued elsewhere).

So, what can we say from this? We are pretty certain that there are two different patterns in other-sex marriages registered in Spain pre and post the introduction of same-sex marriage.  Those patterns seem to be directly linked to the introduction of same-sex marriage and are not part of a general trend in the time period we have data for. Whether one causes the other is of course a matter for further research.

A word of caution – it would be interesting to add pre-2001 marriage data into the mix to see if the final analysis (regressing against year and a dummy for same-sex marriage) holds up in a longer time period. Furthermore, given that Spain is a very religious county (Roman Catholic), one cannot automatically assume that such a phenomenon would repeat itself here in the UK. Indeed, if someone could supply me with the data from some of the other countries in Europe that have already introduced same-sex marriage, we could test that hypothesis.”

 B. Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on Belgium

a. Social and Political Consequences of SSM:

Professor Bart Eeckhout in a presentation of his paper entitled "A Paradise for LGBT Rights? The Paradox of Belgium," notes the following facts about Belgium that can be seen as negative impacts that both gave rise to and were a result of legalizing SSM in Belgium: 

*"Widespread uncoupling of civil marriage and church marriage in the eyes of the people (mental vs. factual marriage  separation  of  church  and  state: reverse  situation  in  the U.S.); religious marriage  not  valid   as a civil marriage .

*The Liberal and Socialist pillars have developed an anti clerical, humanist counter system to the Catholics that that has resulted in e.g. hospitals with a strong humanist policy in terms of abortion, euthanasia, IVF for lesbian couples, transsexual surgery etc. 

*No effective political rallying around the sanctity of marriage and no massive cultural reaction when marriage and adoption were opened to same-sex marriage and adoption were opened to same-sex couples.

*[Belgium] provides easy and cheap medical access to lesbians who want children through artificial insemination by anonymous donors.

*[Belgium]  gives transsexuals the legal right to change their sex and name.

*Third highest divorce rate in EU."

In his paper "Same-Sex Couples, Civil Marriage and the Socialists in Belgium," social scientist David Paternotte explains the political and social contexts that gave rise to SSM in Belgium:

"The LGBT mobilisation in favour of same-sex couples’ legal recognition occurred in a period of profound reform of West-European socialism and at a time of crisis for the Parti socialiste. Socialist leaders were trying to renovate their party to face the spectacular decline of traditional working class, the political scandals linked to the party’s old guard and the new challenges brought by postmodern values.

They were also threatened by the rise of Ecolo, the French-speaking green party, which had also a clear stance on gay and lesbian rights and whose development reflected new sociological trends. In that context, the election of Elio Di Rupo as new president in 1999 marked a turning point, as he tried to launch a thorough renovation of its party. Openly gay, he probably saw the advantage of adopting a firm position on LGBT issues in terms of image and electoral support. LGBT activists also became more influent within the party and, developing personal ties between the latter and grass-roots organisations, they echoed associations’ demands, particularly when the Fédération des Associations Gayes et Lesbiennes officially endorsed the marriage claim in 1999.

"Secondly, we need to pay attention to the specific context into which same-sex marriage has been allowed. Indeed, like in Spain, the access of a new coalition to power in 1999 constituted a decisive moment. The electoral defeat of Christian-democratic parties after fifty years of almost uninterrupted presence in the cabinet opened up an opportunity window as regards ethical questions. The new rainbow coalition, formed by liberals, socialists and greens, wanted to embody political change and, like in Spain, LGBT issues were an easy way to exemplify the rupture."

Paternotte continues:

"It is worth considering the social representations of the group formed by LGBT people and their influence on the way their access to citizenship is conceived. Indeed, empirical research tends to indicate a link between the definition a social group is given and the terms of the inclusion its members are proposed. If they are perceived as different from heterosexuals and/or opposed to them, their inclusion is more likely to be differential in its form and/or its philosophy.

This means in this context that LGBT persons will seek or be proposed other forms of legal recognition than marriage, considered as more respectful of their specificities or social function. Indeed, many associative and political proposals of alternative contracts to marriage, even when they were accessible to both same-sex and different-sex couples, were inspired by the idea that homosexuals were somehow different from heterosexuals and consequently deserved a specific institution to meet their aspirations."

b. Negative Impact and Harassment Against Religion: As with all countries that have legalized SSM or that are in the process of legalizing SSM, it is those that are religious who are seeing an sharp increase of attacks and harassment against them. 

*In their efforts against what they deem as "homophobia," FEMEN an extremist, pro-abortion, homosexual, feminists group, attacked Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard  head of the Catholic Church of Belgium because he believes homosexuality is a sin.  "The four women, representing the pro-abortion and homosexual group FEMEN, took to the stage where they disrobed to reveal black-painted slogans on their bare chests and backs, such as ‘my body my rules,’ and 'anus dei is coming.' They also held signs reading ‘stop homophobia’. The women doused the archbishop with water from bottles formed in the image of the Virgin Mary."

*A few months later FEMEN attacked Archbishop Leonard AGAIN. "During a meeting at the Catholic St. Michael’s College in Brussels, four topless Femen activists stormed the stage wrapped in the rainbow flag, the symbol of the homosexualist movement, disrupting a lecture and throwing a pie in the archbishop’s face. The bare-breasted women also accosted the speaker, French politician and leader of the French Christian Democratic Party Christine Boutin, who is known for her vocal opposition to legally recognised same-sex unions."

*In June of 2007, Belgian gay activists brought charges against Bishop Léonard, for homophobia, which is considered a criminal offence in Belgium according to the 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act. "In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people. "According to Michel Graindorge, the activists’ lawyer, the bishop intended to “stigmatize” homosexuals, whose “identity and dignity is debased from the moment that the bishop considers them to be abnormal.” Mr Graindorge warned for the dangers of such stigmatization, which he claims leads to “the fate the Nazis reserved for [homosexuals].” Homosexual activists claim that the Nazis sent homosexuals to extermination camps." There is a whole archive of different incidents related to religious persecution as a result of LGBT militancy here.

*In 2004, Belgian Cardinal Gustaaf Joos was sued by the Center for Equal Opportunities and Struggle against Racism for stating his own personal belief to a Belgian magazine: "I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are just sexual perverts." He added, "Real homosexuals don't wander in the streets in colorful suits. Those are people who have a serious problem and have to live with that. And if they make a mistake they will be forgiven. We have to help these people and not judge them." He also repeated the Church's teaching that while homosexuality is a sin, Christians do not reject homosexuals as persons."

c. Negative Impact on Human Rights: Another result of SSM in Belgium is the increase of Belgian women being used as easy-bake oven commodities (surrogates) by gay French men, and an increase of French Lesbians using Belgian men and their sperm as commodities, since scientific procreation is not legal in France.

Meanwhile, the costs of IVF in Belgium has become even cheaper at 200 Euros ($270). "It’s only a matter of time and the offer will soon be available on Groupon. The frontiers of artificial fertilization have crossed the low-cost threshold and will offer a ‘baby-inclusive’ package for the record price of 200 euros. At this price, you can’t even buy a smartphone!”, commented the Italian journalist Emanuela Viani on the Catholic Information Agency (SIR) website, with regard to an announcement of the Belgian foundation, "The Walking Egg", that was circulating the internet about a spectacular simplification of the required technics for the production of human embryos in test tubes. 12 children have already been born using this technique, developed in Belgium at the Genk Institute for Fertility Technology. Promoters ensure that it has a success rate comparable to 'classic' IVF and that it will offer social justice even in very poor countries." 

d. Gender Insanity: Sarah Elizabeth Richards in her NY Times article notes how transgender "men" desire to have have babies:  "One study published last year in the journal Human Reproduction of 90 transgender men in Belgium found that 54 percent wished to have children, and 38 percent would have considered freezing their eggs if the procedure had been available. Other research, published in 2002, by Belgian fertility doctors with Western European transgender women found that 40 percent wanted to have children, and 77 percent felt they should have the option to preserve their sperm before hormone treatment. As fertility technology improves and becomes more widely available, transgender people are realizing that they will have more options in the future."

C. The Negative Impact of SSM in the Netherlands

a. Negative Institutional Impacts: 

Professor Douglas Alan notes difficulties in parental rights will occur in the Netherlands due to the law moving away from the biological notion of a natural parent: 

"Legal changes occurred in European countries with legalized same-sex marriage, as well. Specifically, the Netherlands is particularly interesting because it has the longest experience with same-sex marriage. In the Netherlands, there is no automatic presumption of legal parentage for the father in a registered partnership. Instead, the male partner must have the permission of the biological mother to become the legal parent. Nor does the presumption of legal parentage exist for same-sex couples.

This means there is an asymmetry between parentage within lesbian and gay couples. In the case of lesbian couples, the donor father may become the legal parent.  The non-biological co-mother may become a legal parent if the biological father is unwilling to be the legal parent. With gay couples, only the mother is the legal parent.

The biological father may be recognized as the legal parent if he wishes, but the co-father may only become the legal parent if the mother is willing to give up her legal parentage because only two parents can be considered a legal parent at one time. Out of all of this has come the legal standing of “parental authority.” Such authority grants certain rights and responsibilities to the same-sex couple independently of the legal parent.  How all of this will play out in terms of child welfare and heterosexual rights is yet to be seen. However, it points to the difficulty in trying to handle parental rights when the law moves away from the biological notion of the natural parent."

Professor Allen continues by highlighting how the legalization of SSM gave hetero couples the option to convert their marriages to registered partnerships as a result of the same-sex couples being able to convert their registered partnership to a marriage. The result of this was the creation of flash annulments (quick divorce procedure) which made it easier for hetero couples to breakup. The problem with such an option is that many of those couples that converted to registered partnerships and took advantages of the flash annulments had children. Separation of parents in any form with a child is not good for a child's stability.   

"The Netherlands also maintained domestic partnerships when they introduced same-sex marriage, and they opened this option to opposite-sex couples. Id. at 28–29. This provides an interesting, if not unique, example of negative feedback. Interestingly, there has been a considerable flow of married and opposite-sex couples toward registered partnerships. Maintaining the distinct relations is not necessary, but it created an example of how unexpected costs can feed back on opposite-sex couples. In 2007, 28,567 opposite-sex married couples in the Netherlands converted their marriages into registered partnerships. BADGETT, supra note 17, at 61. According to Badgett, most of these conversions were then terminated through a “flash annulment,” which is an easily administered divorce procedure available for partnerships but not marriages. Id. Badgett noted “[these flash annulments were an unintended effect of the law that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.”

In his important paper: "The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the Netherlands," Professor Mircea Trandafir compares how the inclusion of registered partnerships and same-sex marriage couples impacted the marriage rates on hetero-sexual couples. He concludes that overall he did not find evidence of significant negative effects from the legalization of same-sex marriage or from the introduction of registered partnership on heterosexual couples. However, he also concludes that his findings can only track the short-term effects of the two laws and not the long-term effects: 

"Even if the average effect of the two laws is insignificant, responses across various groups in the population may differ. In particular, I find different effects in samples stratified by region of residence and by ethnicity, two potential indicators of religiosity and conservative views. Individuals living in more-conservative municipalities (the Dutch “Bible Belt”) and those from more-conservative ethnicities (Turks, Moroccans, and other non-Western immigrants) have tended to marry significantly more after passage of each of the two laws, consistent with them reclaiming the institution of marriage. In contrast, individuals residing in the more-liberal four largest cities have tended to marry significantly less after passage of each law, which is consistent either with an acceleration in the deinstitutionalization of marriage or with them learning about the availability of an alternative institution.

My findings indicate that neither the legalization of same-sex marriage nor the introduction of registered partnership have had significant negative effects on the Dutch different-sex marriage rate in the aggregate. However, my findings have several limitations. First, I can only estimate the short-term effects of the two laws, given how recently they were enacted. Second, the short-term effect of the same-sex marriage law cannot be separately identified from the longer-term effect of the registered partnership law because of the close timing of the two laws. However, to the extent that these two effects are of the same sign, my results suggest that both are statistically insignificant. Finally, any extrapolation of these results to a different context would need to take into account the social and institutional differences with the Netherlands. Despite these limitations, this article makes an important contribution to our understanding of marriage behavior and to the same-sex marriage debate by providing the first causal estimates of the short-term effects of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage."

At the conclusion of his paper, Professor Trandafir repeats a warning to other researchers not to extrapolate his findings on the Netherlands to other countries without addressing the institutional and social between each country that has legalized SSM: 

"Finally, any extrapolation of the results needs to take into account the social and institutional differences between other countries and the Netherlands. Despite these limitations, I believe my analysis makes an important contribution to our understanding of marriage behavior and to the same-sex marriage debate."

b. Three-Way Cohabitation Agreements:

The Netherlands has also legalized "three-way cohabitation agreements." This can be seen as a problem because the next logical step is "group marriage." Even the father of gay marriage in the Netherlands, Boris Dittrich, admitted that group marriage is next.

Daniel Brennan notes: "In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, “cohabitation agreements” have been used to give three-way relationships a measure of legal recognition. It is even being advocated as the next step over here. One Guardian writer, Martin Robbins, recently responded to these concerns by arguing “What’s wrong with polygamy?” He went on: “It seems to me that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages…”

Paul Belien also confirms that the three-way cohabitation agreement" is a step towards group marriage:

"Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners  was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”

I will reiterate that group marriage has an ugly side, which is group divorce. Since children are involved in divorces then child support, child visitation, and child custody issues will be exacerbated due to the legalizing of 3 or more equal parents to a child. Thus it is the child that will be hurt the most as a result of such a divorce. 

c. Gender Insanity 

The Netherlands Gender Identity Bill is a negative societal effect of SSM because SSM laid the ground work for Transgender Identity to be possible and legalized. Without the acknowledgment of biological sex not mattering for marriage and parenting, the growth of trans rights where biological sex plays no part in how a person is perceived by law would not be possible.

Netherlands Gender Identity Bill:

“The Netherlands has finally adopted legislation that will protect its transgender community by allowing trans people to change their identity on official government documents without gender-reassignment surgery and end the barbaric requirement of forced sterilization. The law was easily passed on Wednesday (51-24) and applies only to persons 16 or older. Boris Dittrich, the Dutch advocacy director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch, spoke to LGBTQ Nation and said: “The new law is a huge step forward for transgender people who do not wish to alter their body but would like to obtain new ID papers…The old law required them to undergo gender reassignment surgery and they and be irreversibly sterilized,” he said. “That these requirements have been deleted makes a big difference in the daily lives of transgender Dutch people who needed to identify themselves with IDs that did not match their preferred gender.”

d. Netherlands forced gay marriage on Arruba, Dutch Antilles, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba and Saint Martin

The Netherlands forced SSM on Caribbean Island Arruba (which is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands). The logic behind the Netherlands forcing SSM upon Arruba was that since Aruba is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it must comply with demands of the Kingdom. "The case went to the Supreme Court after a municipal official for the civil marriage register in Aruba refused to enter a lesbian couple in the register in 2001, Expatica reported April 13. The Dutch women, Charlene and Esther Oduber-Lamers, took the case to court, winning first in the lower court and then in the appeals court. The government of Aruba appealed the case a second time to the Supreme Court, with the support of much of the population—Aruba is 80% Roman Catholic.

“If we accept gay marriage, would we next have to accept Holland’s marijuana bars and euthanasia?” said government spokesman Ruben Trapenberg in 2005. “They have their culture, we have ours.” “We can’t let this become a precedent," said Hendrik Croes, a lawyer for Aruba’s government. "Gay marriage is against the civil code and Aruban morals."The decision makes Aruba a reluctant leader in Caribbean recognition of same-sex marriages, and will force the islands of the Dutch Antilles to accept homosexual unions as well, including Curacao, Bonaire, Saba and Saint Martin."

D. Societal and Institutional Impacts of SSM on Canada

a. Cultural Negative Impact of SSM: Bradley W. Miller, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario, had the following observations of SSM in Canada from his paper entitled: "Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years on: Lessons From Canada" 

"There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America."

Negative Impacts on Human and Religious Rights: Miller continues by explaining the Impact on Human Rights that SSM has had on Canada-

"A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.

Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

...But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous. Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin."

b. Gender Insanity: A whole list relating to what Miller wrote regarding how the new orthodoxy has punished religious individuals and institution can be found here. Other societal harms caused by the inclusion of SSM manifested in the form of gender insanity. For example, the passage of The Toby's Act. The Toby's Act acknowledged and gave protected status for individual's gender identity, gender expression, and made same sex gatherings (all women gatherings) illegal. A Lesbian group called The Lesbian Mafia had the following to say about the Toby’s Act: 

“Our thoughts on Toby's Act: This is a really important story but the LGBT, feminist, progressive and lesbian media/blogosphere are ignoring it.

MPP Cheri DiNovo: Toby’s Act made Same-Sex gatherings in Ontario illegal for Women
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/mpp-cheri-dinovo-tobys-act-made-same-sex-gatherings-in-ontario-illegal-for-women/

So, what's happening is some Canadian legislation which was intended to protect trans-women better did two things "unintentionally":

1. Made same-sex gathering illegal

2. Gave male born women protection under hate crimes but no protection for female born women.

This will always be the result of this kind of legislation, and clueless politicians are JUST starting to catch on "OH wait, that's not right" sooooo the only Lezbo senator in Canada is trying to amend "Toby's Act" to correct the insanity they enacted.

But this is a good thing, sort of. Because people will start to figure out that when crusading for male born trans-women's rights there sometimes becomes a conflict with women's rights. For reality to catch up with what we have been saying happens and will happen. So it must be addressed and they get pushed back legally. And it's good that Canada can do it and their follies and error can be used as examples when fighting trans issues that hurt women legally here." 

  

More gender insanity can be seen by looking at the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Brochure which states that non-operational trans people should be able to use the lockerrooms and washrooms of the gender they think they are: "People should be recognized as the gender they live in, regardless of whether they have undergone any type of surgery. Trans individuals should also be given access to washrooms and change facilities on this basis, unless they specifically ask for accommodation (such as for their own safety or privacy reasons). "

 

As a result of The Toby's Act being passed another insane gender policy is working its way to being passed as well. The Transgender Rights Bathroom Bill C-279 will prohibit discrimination (overall of Canada) against a transgender person who wants to use locker rooms, washrooms, and bathrooms of their choice.

Recently in Toronto, an elderly woman wrote a letter to The Toronto Star asking what she should do about a trans woman ( a male that psychologically identifies as a woman) who approached her to ask a question while he was naked:

“I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”

The "Radical Feminists" at Gendertrender harshly and deservedly so, criticized The Toronto Star's editor Ken Gallinger by stating:

"Did transgender activists respond with concern and address the fact that Gender Identity protections remove the rights of women to be free from male sexual abuse in public areas? No. Instead, they claimed that the sexual assault was a “false claim by right-wingers” and “a hoax”, the same way anti-feminist men blame rape victims by citing “false rape claims”. Did transactivists like Autumn Sandeen and Cristan Williams express an ounce of empathy or concern for the elderly woman abused by the “transwoman”? No they did not. They accused the woman of making a false claim, calling her a liar, for no other reason except that they would rather allow women and girls to be sexually abused than address the way Gender Identity laws eliminate rights and protections for women and girls.

Likewise, the advice columnist who responded to the woman’s letter advised her that Gender Identity laws allowed men “the absolute right” to exhibit their penises in women’s locker rooms, and that basically she should get used to it. He kind of waffled a bit on the erection part, deeming it “unacceptable” – but providing no clear measure to legally halt the behavior. And if erect penises are “unacceptable” but non-erect ones are “an absolute right” for strange men to inflict on women and girls in YMCA locker-rooms, then what about the partially erect? Is that “partially unacceptable”? Or an “absolute right”?

The male advice columnist doesn’t explain. “You’re on your own, toots! Sucks being you!” the guy seems to say, like the transgender activists, assigning no value or concern to the female experience of male sexual assault. The issue raised by the woman’s question -namely that any man at any time can claim to be transgender to access the women’s change room to freely abuse women sexually, as was done to her, was poo-pooed and the victim was lectured on the importance of men’s sexual rights.

In fact, the whole matter was dropped, with the columnist hand-waving away female sexual assault and the transactivists doing the same (but calling the woman a liar as well) until transactivists began also claiming that the newspaper should not in future publish any sexual assault claims from any woman, ever, if the male perpetrator invokes a Gender Identity. The Toronto Star eventually decided that ongoing transactivist accusations that the victim falsified her claims reflected badly on the paper, having published them. So after two weeks of allowing transgender activists to rail heartlessly against a 70 year old victim of a sexual assault, the Star finally published a rebuttal today titled "Transgender Rights Letter No Hoax."

“She felt she was not taken seriously”. It is no surprise the victim is still seeking answers after the traumatizing sexual assault that has been ignored, dismissed, and “not taken seriously” again and again and again. By the YMCA. By transactivists. By the ethics advice columnist at the local newspaper, Ken Gallinger,who actually wrote an entire column today expressing his “deep resentment” that allowing women to report the sexual assaults that men commit MAY MAKE MEN LOOK BAD. Disgusting! Truly disgusting. It would not be surprising if the victim was still traumatized every time she stepped into a locker room to disrobe. It would not be surprising if she felt stressed by the prospect of her granddaughters using the locker room at the YMCA, or anywhere else where Gender Identity laws erase the rights of women and girls to privacy, including the right to be free from strange males forcing us to view their erections as they watch us struggle to change out of a wet bathing suit in a public locker room."

c. Negative Institutional Impacts: Professor Douglas Allen describes the following negative institutional impacts SSM has had on Canada:

"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."

Other institutional impacts include:

* Less Marriages overall and more Common Law Unions.

* Decrease in fertility rate: "In its Fertility Overview of the years 2009 to 2011 released yesterday, StatsCan reported that in 2009 the total fertility rate dropped to 1.67, then to 1.63 in 2010, and to 1.61 in 2011, the most recent year for which numbers are available."

E. Negative Impact of SSM on Massachusetts

 

Out of all the countries and states that have legalized SSM, Massachusetts is the state that has the most bizarre manifestations (besides Sweden which I will evaluate in another paper) of negative impacts as a result of SSM. Those bizarre manifestations can be seen in the dark and dangerous cloud of Massachusetts Gender Insanity.

a. Gender Insanity:

1)  An inmate who is in prison for life for murdering his wife, asked for sex reassignment surgery and the Court of Appeals and a Federal Judge granted his request at the tax payers expense. How does a murderer get the "created right" to receive sex reassignment surgery?

"A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge's ruling granting a taxpayer-funded sex change operation for a transgender inmate serving a life sentence for a murder conviction, saying receiving medically necessary treatment is a constitutional right that must be protected 'even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox.' U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in 2012 that the state Department of Correction must provide sex reassignment surgery for Michelle Kosilek, who was born Robert Kosilek and is serving a life sentence for the killing of his wife in 1990." The Department of Correction challenged the ruling, arguing Kosilek has received adequate treatment for gender identity disorder, including female hormones, laser hair removal and psychotherapy. Prison officials said those treatments have eased the stress and anxiety felt by the 64-year-old Kosilek, and they brought in experts who supported their argument that it was unnecessary to heed advice from independent medical experts who recommended she undergo the sex change surgery as the next step in treating her gender identity disorder."

2) Transgender children whose psychological identity contradicts their biological sex, are allowed to use restrooms, locker-rooms, showers, and be on athletic teams that are opposite of their own biological sex.

"The Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester has issued orders to the state’s K-12 public schools requiring them to permit “transgender” boys and girls to use the opposite sex’s locker rooms, bathrooms, and changing facilities as long as they claim to identify with that gender.

Described as “the most thorough, invasive, and radical transgender initiative ever seen on a statewide level,” the eleven page document was crafted by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) with the assistance of homosexual and transgender advocacy groups, while leaving many parents and pro-family groups out in the cold. This policy places an even greater burden on less-equipped elementary schools in Massachusetts small towns where it may be possible for boys as old as 14 to share toilet facilities with girls as young as five. Astonishingly, neither a doctor’s note nor parental permission is required for a student to use the facilities of the opposite sex. Only the student’s word is needed: If a boy says he’s a girl, as far as the schools are concerned, he’s a girl. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity,” said a spokesperson for the Massachusetts DESE."

In his paper entitled: Dangerous New Identity: Is Change Needed in Determining Transgender Participation in Athletics Through New Gender Identity?" John J. Leppler addresses the "unfair advantage" the male-to-female athletes have over their females in sports that require a high degree of strength and power. He concludes his paper by arguing:

"If equality is the goal, the policies, procedures, and the means by which sports leagues and sanctioning bodies ‘legislate’ the participation of a transgender athlete should be re-examined. The sports industry in 2013 and moving forward already has two unresolved issues that need be addressed moving forward; doping and match fixing. Let’s not make something that deals with a foundational principle in society, gender equality, to become a third problem in perhaps the industry that aids the worldwide economy the most; sports at all levels."

3) In their article: "Sky Fall: Gender Ideology Comes to the Schoolhouse" Professor Adam MacLeod and Andrew Beckwith connect how annihilating sex distinctions in marriage flows over into the annihilation of sex distinction in many other important areas of society ( I formalized this argument here) -

"Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts.

Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic doesn’t automatically commit a state to forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a logical connection. One of the premises justifying the redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations, that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the practice of marriage.

But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice."

MacLeod and Beckwith conclude their paper by emphasizing that the sky may not have fallen yet in Massachusetts, however cracks are growing in the sky with the help of Massachusetts gender insanity:

"The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.”

The lesson is clear. If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth. A view of human nature that until very recently was understood to be obvious is becoming a source of disqualification from participating in public life. As lawyers, we perceive the logic of this latest regulatory innovation. But as fathers, we think that those who are dismayed by MDOE’s regulations are the only Massachusetts residents who can plausibly claim to be in their right minds. If the sky is not falling then it is at least showing ominous fissures."

 b. Negative Impacts on Religious Freedom: 

A Catholic Church in Boston received death threats and hate mails for putting the message "Two Men are Friends not Spouses on their front lawn sign."

"Next thing you know, the nasty telephone calls started to come, and they were coming every few minutes,” said the pastoral director in a May 17 interview with CNA. After local media took an interest, there were “some horrible e-mails overnight,” and a phone call from a woman “saying the church should be burned down. We had a group of three young men and a woman who were upset. They were actually planning on going into the church,” he recounted. Guillotte steered them away, while trying to field an inquiry from a reporter. She witnessed one of the guys scream across the parking lot that he was going to burn the church down. We hear that, here and there.”

Opponents of the message starting posting their own signs on or near the parish property. One of them contained an invitation to “spread LOVE, not hate,” while another used a sexual insult to describe the Virgin Mary. Others read “Jesus Freaks, come to your senses,” and “Pray for death.”

The Catholic Charities of Boston closed down because the state would force them to let same-sex couples adopt from them. It was a damned if they do, damned if they don't, catch 22 situation:

"How did this tragedy happen? It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.

Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.  But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too."

c. Negative Institutional Impacts:  Marriage licenses and certificates in Massachusetts now have "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "husband" and "wife." 

*Birth certificates in Massachusetts have been changed from "mother" and "father" to "mother/parent" and "father/parent." Two men or two women can now be listed as the "parents" on birth certificates! Homosexuals who adopt can revise children's' existing birth certificates.

*A court ruled in 2012 that if a child is "born of a same-sex marriage," there is no need for adoption by a non-biological parent. Thus, they would both be the listed as the "parents" on the child's birth certificate, without any formal proceedings necessary. (The other biological parent is not noted on the official birth certificate.) A complete list of how SSM has negatively impacted Massachusetts can be found here.

V. Conclusion

After evaluating the negative impact of SSM on some of the earliest countries to legalize SSM, it is clear that all the countries, despite the differences in their marriage institutional laws, and non-marital options, have a common core of consequences. The essence of the negative ramifications derive from the very first premise SSM advocates propose which is that gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, and bisexual couples and families are the same as heterosexual couples and families. In order to accept that premise the additional premise that has been accepted is that female mothers and male fathers offer no unique essential traits for raising and developing a child.

Thus in all the countries that have accepted SSM the atomizing of male and female distinctions has been seen in family law within the institution of marriage by erasing the terms reflecting the reality of mother, father, husband, and wife. The atomization acted as a bridge that carried over into the manifestation of trans rights which trample over women's rights, allows transgendered children to play on teams of the opposite sex, disallows same-sex only gatherings (women only events), marriage rates went down in part due to the legalization of SSM (cheapened the institution) while new non-marital options were opened to hetero couples as a result of same-sex unions trying to get more status as couples (further cheapened the institution of marriage), 3 or more multiple parent options were opened up to hetero couples as a result of same-sex couples complications regarding how they are in principle situated in regards to children (this will result in 3 or 4, 5 parent child custody battles).

Religious and non-religious individuals, companies, and institutions were threatened, sued, harassed, and demonized for their beliefs regarding SSM. Since scientific procreation businesses targeted gay and lesbian couples due to the fact that SSM was being legalized and LGBT people wanted to prove that they are the same and just as good as hetero couples; more women were being used as easy bake ovens in the form of gestational surrogacy for gay couples, and men were used as commodities to lend their sperm to lesbian couples. 

All of the negative impacts I listed are just the short-term ramifications of legalizing SSM, one can only imagine how much worse the long-terms effects will be on society and on marriage as an institution.