Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage
Here, at last, is the book America needs to make sense of the debate over same-sex "marriage."
Author Peter Sprigg demolishes stereotypes on this issue, showing why homosexual civil marriage should be opposed by libertarians, Democrats, women, men, and even homosexuals themselves.
Sprigg demonstrates that this "culture war" was not started by conservatives, but by homosexual activists and radical judges.
Sprigg debunks the notion that same-sex marriage should be viewed as a "civil rights" issue, showing that: homosexuality is unlike race or gender; most African Americans oppose homosexual marriage; and banning homosexual marriage is not like banning interracial marriage.
At the heart of Sprigg's argument is his contention that the ability of opposite-sex couples to reproduce the human race is fundamental to why marriage is a public institution.
The real "benefits of marriage" are that husbands and wives, and their children, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous.
While heterosexuals have damaged marriage, Sprigg argues that marriage for homosexuals would ratify the destructive sexual revolution.
Sprigg demonstrates that homosexuals' need for the tangible benefits of marriage is grossly exaggerated. Homosexuals can already make arrangements to handle issues like: medical decision-making; joint ownership of property; and inheritance rights.
Sprigg argues that homosexuals are likely to change marriage more than marriage will change homosexuals, because they are: less likely to enter into long-term relationships; less likely to be sexually faithful; and less likely to stay together for a lifetime.
He shows how children are harmed by the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless families, and demonstrates that same-sex marriage would logically lead to marriages based on polygamy, incest, and pedophilia.
Sprigg also defends the legitimacy of bringing religious values to bear in this debate, then presents a theological view of the purpose of marriage in: providing companionship, regulating sexual behavior, and facilitating procreation and child-rearing.
Turning to solutions, Sprigg notes the value--but also the limitations--of measures such as: state Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs); the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over marriage.
Sprigg concludes that the U.S. Constitution will be amended--by the U. S. Supreme Court to require homosexual marriage, or by the people to forbid it. Only the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment can preserve our democracy and protect our most basic social institution--the marriage of a man and a woman.