Contact:Â Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
DETROIT,Â Mich. — A coauthor of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment Thursday warnedÂ that future generations of children will be harmed andÂ taxpayersÂ hit with theÂ costs of increased law enforcement, social services,Â and welfare programs if aÂ single federal judge redefines marriage and overturns the stateÂ constitutional provisionÂ supported by 2.7 million voters in 2004.
The amendment, added to Michigan’s constitutionÂ with the backing ofÂ nearly 60 percent of the vote on the November 2004 ballot, reads:
“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
U.S. District Judge Bernard FriedmanÂ is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday at Wayne State University in a lawsuit in which aÂ homosexual couple is asking the court to declare the amendment in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said “our society and future generations of children will suffer significant harm if thisÂ federal judge, this oneÂ man,Â is arrogant enough to believe the authors of our Constitution intended him to haveÂ the rawÂ power to overturn the willÂ and common sense of 2.7 millionÂ voters.”
Glenn,Â who first proposed the amendment in 2003 and was one of its two co-authors,Â last week debated the homosexual couple’s attorney, Dana Nessel,Â live on Fox 2 Detroit’s public affairs television talk show “Let It Rip.” (Click to watch nine-minute video:Â http://goo.gl/lHCMwÂ )
Glenn Thursday said theÂ lesbian couple bringing the lawsuitÂ “may each be able to play the role of a mother,Â but neither oneÂ is capable of beingÂ aÂ father.Â The role model relationshipÂ we should continue to uphold and protect and encourage as the social ideal, as what’s best for every child,Â is to have both a mother and a father who committed to each other and to their children in marriage.”
“They’re not asking for access to the institution of marriage,” he said, “they’re asking a single judge to overrule the people of Michigan andÂ redefineÂ what marriage is for all of society.”Â
He said legally redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would result in legal recognition and thus social encouragement ofÂ homosexualÂ relationships in which children would beÂ “intentionally,Â on purpose, by design,Â deniedÂ having one or the other, either a mother or a father.”
“That radical new social modelÂ tellsÂ womenÂ that the uniquely feminine qualities theyÂ bring to parentingÂ are insignificant and unimportant to a child’s emotional and social needs, something a second father could do just as well, andÂ that young girls are just as well offÂ not having a mother,” Glenn said.Â “People withÂ common senseÂ instinctivelyÂ knowÂ that’s not true,Â nor is it true ofÂ the unique qualities men bring to parenting. Decades of experience andÂ social illsÂ prove thatÂ not having aÂ father in the home has causedÂ serious harm toÂ children and to society.”
“Social science has always found that traditional marriage produces children who are healthier,Â safer, more financially secure,Â less likely to be on welfare,Â unemployment,Â or drugs, and less likely toÂ get arrested,” Glenn said.Â “IfÂ we as aÂ society return to promoting andÂ incentivizing the moral and social virtues of one-man, one-woman marriage, we’ll need fewer police, fewer social services, and less welfare for future generations. It’s not just the right thing to do.Â For taxpayers, it’s the smart thing to do.”
“But as society now promotes homosexual relationships, new studies have found thatÂ children raised by homosexual couples are far more likely to live in poverty, be on welfare andÂ unemployed, and be involved in criminal activity,” he said.Â “If that’s the future we choose for coming generations of children, taxpayers will be forced toÂ pay for more law enforcement, more social services, and more welfare programs.”
Glenn said social science has consistently found thatÂ the best, safest, healthiest, most secure environment for aÂ childÂ is with its married biological mother and father, in which children do better in school, are mentally, emotionally, and physically healthier, and are less likely to use drugs, become juvenile delinquents, or be involved in teen pregnancy.
HeÂ also cited peer-reviewed university and other studies which found that children raised in households headed by adults in a homosexual relationship fare poorer on a wide range of factors, which he said inevitably lead toÂ increased costs to taxpayers and society at large.
University of Texas-Austin
University of Texas-Austin sociologistÂ Mark Regnerus last summer reported the results of a study that specifically compared adults who wereÂ raised byÂ homosexual couples with adults raised by their biologicalÂ mother and father. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
Fox News reported regarding the study:Â “Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/u-texas-backs-professor-in-battle-with-gay-blogger/
Family Research Council’s analysis of the UT-A studyÂ also reported that the adult childrenÂ of homosexual couples were foundÂ to beÂ “much more likely to have received welfare.” (The study found thatÂ while only 17 percentÂ of adults raised by their mother and father had been on welfare,Â 69 percent of adults raised by lesbian couples andÂ 57 percent of adults raised by homosexual men had received public assistance.)
According to FRC, the study also found that adults raised by homosexual couples hadÂ lower educational attainment,Â less safety and securityÂ and more ongoing “negative impact” in the family in which they were raised,Â and were arrested more often, while daughters of homosexual couples reported more sexual partners,Â both male and female.
In comparison to adults raised by their biological mother and father, adults raised by lesbian couples in particular –Â who made up 71 percent of the sample ofÂ adults raised by a homosexual couple –Â were found:
-Â almost fourÂ times more likely to be currently on public assistance.
-Â more than threeÂ times more likely to be unemployed.
– tenÂ times more likely to have been ‘touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
-Â nearly fourÂ times moreÂ likely to have been ‘physically forced’ by someone to have sex against their will.
-Â more likely to use marijuanaÂ and to have pled guilty to a non-minor criminal offense.
– nearly four times more likely to identify as something other than heterosexual.
Â – more likely to be cohabiting rather than married, and three times more likely to have had an affairÂ Â Â while married or cohabiting.
Â Kansas State University
Family studies professor Walter Schumm found that children raised by homosexual couples are “far more likely” to engage in homosexual behavior themselves.
As AOL News reported Oct. 17, 2010: “The study on sexual orientation…says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.Â …(W)hen the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s — presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation — 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says. …He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, ’89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.’Â … And across all his data…he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians.Â …Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to ‘try out women.'”
University of Southern California
USC researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz found that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves and that females raised by homosexual parents areÂ more promiscuous.Â
“(A)Â greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. …Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste,” the study found, according to USC News. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html
The Boston Phoenix, a homosexual activist newspaper, reported that “asÂ Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts it, StacyÂ and Biblarz have ‘burst the bubble of one of the best-kept communityÂ secrets.'”
Associated Press national correspondent David Crary reported June 16, 2001: “The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents…are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. …Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights…urged lesbians and gays to overcome any uneasiness they might have about the report. ‘If in fact our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay — if we’re ashamed of that outcome, it means we’re ashamed of ourselves,’ Kendall said.”
Glenn said children being raised to be more likely to engage in homosexual behavior — as USC and Kansas State researchers found — would subject them to greater risk of the severe health consequences experienced by individuals involved inÂ such behavior, including higher incidenceÂ of domestic violence,Â mental illness (Journal of the American Medical Association), substance abuse, serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV/AIDS (which former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman called a “gay disease”), anal cancer, and hepatitis, and according to Oxford University’s Journal of Epidemiology, premature death by up to 20 years. http://goo.gl/vIOqq
Glenn also said that if federal courts redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman, “there will thereafter be no rational, reasonable, logical, or legally consistent basis for refusing the next special interest group’s demand to redefine marriage again, this time toÂ include polygamy and group marriage.”
“Polygamists and bisexuals will claim the same thing these homosexual plaintiffs are asserting now, that they tooÂ have a ‘right’ to redefine marriage to let them marryÂ as many people as they claim to love, no matterÂ the impact and harm toÂ society and future generations of children.”
Â # # #