|1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT|
Why Ohio Should Pass the Defense of Marriage Act
By Patrick Johnston, D.O., family practitioner in Dresden, Ohio
The Battle Over Marriage
Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota,
191 N.W.2d 185, 1971
In finding against homosexual plaintiffs the state Supreme Court judge said: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Marriage is the foundation of any civil society. Before God established civil government, He established the family, starting with a man and a woman united in a lifelong commitment of fidelity. It is by His design that men and women become one in holy matrimony and express their intimacy by procreating and raising up children to be stewards of God’s blessings when they are gone. Civil law does not arbitrarily create marriage, it simply acknowledges this fundamental institution of humanity which predates all civil laws. Society creates benefits for marriage because marriage has important benefits for society; stable marriages are the building block upon which nations and societies are built. If the brick crumbles, the building falls regardless of how grand its design. The state’s interest in protecting this sacred, universal institution is self-evident.
Marriage is under assault today in America. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has joined Vermont in declaring that the Constitution allows homosexual couples to have the same marriage benefits in society as heterosexual couples. A Harris/CNN/Time poll in July 2003 found that 60% of Americans oppose "homosexual marriage," while only 33% support it. Ohioans would never extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples – only an unelected, unaccountable, homophilic clan of bench-legislating activist judges can do that. Ohio’s leaders must be proactive to defend marriages from the activist judges who conspire against this sacred institution, not so much as to expand its definition, but to cripple what they consider to be an archaic and patriarchal institution.
There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage should not be extended to homosexuals. The first is that a homosexual relationship is not a marriage, and never can be. This truth is self-evident, but will made clearer through the course of this article. The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as traditional marriages, but the consequences of their violation of the laws of nature and nature’s God are far more negative than positive.
What do I mean by “the laws of nature”? When we use an object in accordance to its design, we benefit from its use and its potential is realized. When objects are abused contrary to their design, for example, if we were to eat soup with a shovel and dig a ditch with a spoon, what would be the consequence? Injury. Those objects would not see their potential, and we would harm ourselves in the process. Homosexuals violate the laws of nature; they practice acts that are contrary to their design. As would be expected, harm is the result: psychological, physical, and social harm - not only to themselves, but to children and to society in general.
One doesn’t have to read the Bible to know God’s purposes for sex, or which environment is best suited for the raising of children. Nature teaches us these things. The ideal home for the raising up of children is under the care of a mother and a father, complementary parts of humanity, each with unique contributions to the development of children. Nature teaches us God’s design for sex and marriage and sanctions violators with misery, disease, and untimely death - study after study confirms these unalterable truths.
Ohio must resist the damning political correctness, brave the derogatory assaults from the left, and join the other thirty-seven states that have passed a Defense of Marriage Act. We must do what is right and necessary to protect the marriage and “the laws of nature and nature’s God” from this relentless attack.
You have heard from ex-homosexuals who testified how intrinsically destructive the lifestyle is and how they changed. You have heard testimonies from attorneys, how the law of our land not only allows but mandates that we discriminate against unnatural sexual unions. You have heard from psychiatrists who, on a daily basis, successfully counsel homosexuals into changing their pathological sexual preferences. I am a family practitioner and have had many homosexual patients, and I bring the perspective of a family doctor on the front lines who witnesses the physical, social, and psychological carnage of illicit sexual perversion.
Four Homosexual Patients
In order to demonstrate the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle, allow me to tell you about four patients whom I have given the pseudonyms, Joe, Lisa, Shannon, and Bob. Each of these stories is true to the best of my recollection. I present their stories to you in an attempt to show you that the homosexual lifestyle is intrinsically unnatural, pathological, and harmful. The pathology I discovered in these four homosexuals is the norm in the homosexual community, as the studies I have documented reveal.
I think it is important for us to distinguish between involuntary homosexual desires or tendencies and voluntary homosexual acts or choices. Many of the negative consequences of homosexuality that I mention below are annexed with the voluntary acts associated with homosexuality, not the involuntary predisposition. The Holy Bible distinguishes between temptations and sin. Homosexual temptations or tendencies are pathological adaptations, the result of a combination of biological, psychological, and sociological factors, whereas homosexual acts are sinful choices that are the result of ingratitude, the rejection of self-evident truth, the denial of the Creator, and, ultimately, idolatry (Romans 1:18-32).
There has been concern in this Committee that discussion of the negative affects of homosexuality is irrelevant to the Defense of Marriage Act that is being debated. To argue so reveals that you have missed the connection between the harmful, depreciating effects of homosexual relationships and the state’s interest in the institution of marriage. It is in the interest of the state government to defend the unique legitimacy of traditional marriage because that which the activist judiciary is proposing – granting marriage benefits to same-sex couples – is harmful to individuals, to the institution of marriage, and to society as a whole. I beg of you, dear Ohio statesmen, do not allow homosexual perversion to be endorsed under the cloak of law, and do not neglect your duty to uphold the law of nature and nature’s God in the face of the brazen judicial tyranny that threatens it.
Joe is in his mid-20’s, and comes to my office for the first time with
his lover. Since his early 20’s,
Joe has been on disability for psychological illnesses. He has attempted suicide a number of
times. He is on multiple
psychiatric medications, but has been unable to get his symptoms - his paranoia,
depression, and anxiety - under control.
His compliance is poor because the medicine only minimally improves his
Statistically, Joe’s promiscuity is not atypical for homosexuals, and this highlights the inordinate affections that characterize homosexuality. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals. Drs. Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of homosexuality, found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28% having 1,000 or more sex partners while 43 % estimated that they had sex with 500 or more., In Paul Van de Ven’s study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, he found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners [of homosexuals] was 101-500," with roughly 15% of subjects having had greater than 500 partners and roughly another 15% having had greater than 1000 partners.The same holds true for homosexual couples that profess to be in committed relationships. In The Male Couple, authors McWhirter and Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, “Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.”  By contrast, studies reveal that 75% of heterosexual men and 90% of heterosexual women remain faithful for the duration of their life.
Continued next page
 Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994
 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309
 A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981
 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253
 Robert T. Michael et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston:Little, Brown and Company, 1994
© 2003 WhereTheTruthHurts.org - All Rights Reserved.