COUNTERPOINT: Despite DOMC's claim that the "research is overwhelming," there have been exactly zero accredited studies that say children do better with a mother and a father versus two same-sex parents. The studies quoted by DOMC--but never named--only compare two-parent to single-parent households. Importantly, the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association have both endorsed same-sex marriages, going as far as saying that children might suffer psychological harm if same-sex parents are not given the same legal protections as hetero parents.
POINT: A male and a female is the way that nature meant it; every species requires a male and female to produce offspring.
COUNTERPOINT: If the goal of marriage is to produce progeny, then where's the ballot measure that stops infertile couples from getting married? Where's the ballot measure that would make children a legal requirement of every marriage?
POINT: Measure 36 does not legally change anything because an existing state statute defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
COUNTERPOINT: This argument is bunk because state statutes must always bow to the state constitution. Measure 36 wants to amend the constitution (and that's legally changing it). But what's really at question here is not what the state's statutes say, but rather if we're following the spirit and letter of the constitution.
The Oregon Supreme Court is scheduled to receive legal briefing on Li vs. The State of Oregon--a lawsuit filed in March by same-sex couples fighting for the right to marry. At issue in that case is whether the equal protection clause in the state's constitution demands marriage rights for all couples. In April, a ruling from Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden determined that the state constitution probably does require these privileges for same-sex couples. What's at stake is whether Oregon will follow a "Massachusetts model," which provides fully recognized marriages for same-sex couples, or a "Vermont model" which follows a civil union model. This winter, the Supreme Court will likely determine which model to follow.
In fact, incorporating the language from Measure 36 into the state constitution will likely conflict with the equal protection clause--an essential element of the constitution. This conflict most likely will trigger yet another round of legal battles, making the situation even more complicated.
POINT: Same-sex marriages will put "traditional" marriage on a slippery slope.
COUNTERPOINT: On their website and in their literature, DOMC does not list this as one of their "seven reasons to vote yes." But they do talk about this "slippery slope" in their instructional videos. The argument runs that same-sex marriages will lead to "bestiality," among other vices. Okay, so if gays are supposed to be so obsessed by "bestiality" how come we never hear anyone but conservative Christians talking about it?
POINT: The ban of same-sex marriage is not discrimination.
COUNTERPOINT: Citing support from several African-American religious congregations, DOMC claim to have "proven" that the proposed amendment could not be discrimination.
The term "civil rights" does not apply exclusively to struggles by ethnic groups for equal rights; it distinctly applies the same rights to all citizens, specifically, according to the Oregon constitution, "the right to legal and social and economic equality."
POINT: The Bible says same-sex marriage is wrong.
COUNTERPOINT: The Bible also says you shouldn't eat bacon or shellfish, you should flog your neighbor if he's caught working on Sunday, and it's okay to sleep with your daughters if there are no other eligible women around. Besides (and this is a pretty important point) we live in America--not Bible Land.