According to the 2000 United States Census, there are 703 self-reported same-gender households in North Dakota.  Nationally and in North Dakota, approximately one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples are raising children (this produces an approximate total of 190 North Dakota same-gender households with children).  Denying these families the security and stability that marriage can bring only hurts children.

Many rights and privileges are available only through the marriage contract.  A number of protections can be arranged through private contract, but these represent a fraction of the approximately 1300 rights, privileges and responsibilities available to a married couple at the federal level.

The anti-gay amendments (at the federal and state levels) could ban any protections under the law for gay and lesbian couples.  These amendments go much farther than simply defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They could prevent gay and lesbian couples from having any basic rights and protections under the law, such as the right to visit a partner who in the hospital or the right to share health care and Social Security benefits.

North Dakota law already defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and does not recognize same-gender marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Religious institutions DON’T have to recognize civil marriages.  Churches have never been forced to recognize or perform marriages against their beliefs. Catholic churches are not required to conduct marriages for divorced persons, for example, even though the marriages are legal under North Dakota law.

Tolerance is one of the most important indicators of a city or region’s ability to attract and retain the types of creative individuals who are likely to fuel economic grown in the 21^st century.  There is a strong correlation between the existence of a strong and vibrant GLBT community and the presence of what Dr. Richard Florida calls the “creative class.” (Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class).

Denying same-gender couples equal access to civil marriage does NOTHING to address any of the problems faced by the institution of marriage today.  How can the divorce rate be lowered by reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples?  It can't, plain and simple.  Does denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights address the issues of domestic violence and "deadbeat dads"?  Of course not.  All our opponents can do is attempt to scare the public with claims about the "impending end of Western civilization."

Our opponents claim that our sexual orientation is merely chosen and that our “lifestyle” is a “behavior” that does not merit protection similar to that offered on the basis of innate characteristics, such as race, physical ability, gender, etc.  While a growing body of scientific literature and the testimony of countless lesbians and gay men speak of sexual orientation as an innate characteristic, the argument over the basic nature of homosexuality is ultimately irrelevant in a legal context.  Our country’s laws protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of innate characteristics as well as guarantee an individual’s right to engage in certain behaviors (for example, freedom of religion and freedom of expression).

Our opponents often claim that gay and lesbian relationships are too “unstabile” to receive the privilege of civil marriage.  Even if that were in fact the case, what is the logic behind denying the gay or lesbian couple and their children the very institution that can provide the stability and security that those relationships and families supposedly lack?  In fact, given the current high divorce rate, this claim could be used to argue against marriage for opposite-sex couples!

Opponents of marriage equality for same-gender couples claim that changing the current definition of marriage will destroy the institution.  Many of the claims being heard today are not much different than those that were made during the debate over interracial marriage.  The dire predictions of an end to marriage “as we know it” did not come true then, nor will they if same-gender couples are allowed to marry.  Changing standards do not mean there will effectively be no standards, as our opponents assert.  Legislatures and the courts have always had the power to define civil marriage; as our understanding of human rights has grown, our definition of marriage has changed to adapt to that new understanding.

Marriage as a legal institution has changed considerably in Western Europe and the United States. Throughout much of our history, marriage was often "traditionally" defined as a union of two people of the same religion, or the same race, or as a relationship in which the female was simply the property of the male. With the rise of individualism and equality of all individuals, those "traditional" elements have changed. Now we emphasize that marriage is matter of personal choice of each of the individuals involved, not their parents, their church, or their government.

One example of how civil marriage has evolved over time if the legal status afforded to women under the marriage contract.  Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19^th century, married women had no legal standing.  They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.  As late as 1940 married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.  Is this the "traditional" view of marriage to which our opponents would like to return?

Opponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples rely on scare tactics, unfounded and false claims, half-truths and misinformation to make their case.  When solid information is presented that contradicts their claims, they simply ignore or dismiss it, as in the case of numerous well-respected national organizations, such as the Child Welfare League of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that oppose restricting parenting rights for lesbian and gay couples.