about end end's mission founding of end why fight for glbt rights links home

get informed

> same-sex marriage
> 2003 north dakota legislative session
> nd senate votes
> nd house votes
> legal status of glbt 
north dakotans (hrc)
> north dakota overview (hrc)

 

get involved
> sign up for equality north dakota's action alert and announcements list
   



national gay and lesbian task force


outfront minnesota

a

a

a

a

a

a

 

Talking Points for Marriage Equality: Countering the Opposition

The proposed amendment to the North Dakota Constitution reads: 

"Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Polygamy

This argument was used against interracial marriages also.

There is no push to legalize polygamy in those countries that have same-sex marriage such as the Netherlands.

We are not advocating polygamy. We are advocating for the same legal rights as two consenting adult heterosexuals enjoy.

Polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament.

Children

1.7-4.0 million GLBT families 

5% (at least) of American families are GLBT families (3.3-3.5 million)

8-10 million children live in GLBT families 

6-14 million children have at least one GLBT parent 

Children in lesbian families are less likely to conform to sex-typed cultural norms

Children in lesbian families show no differences in psychological well-being and cognitive ability

Choice

Even if sexual orientation were a choice, as a society we protect "choices" in many areas such as religion and politics.

Sexual orientation is a complex human behavior that is unlikely to have a "single cause."

The evidence is not definitive on the degree to which people are "hard-wired" by genetics for sexual orientation. 

Civil Unions

Civil unions do not provide the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage

Civil unions are not recognized in other states

Implications of Proposed Amendment

ND Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem declined to rule on the implications of the wording of the amendment in Letter Opinion 2004-L-59, dated September 23, 2004 to State Representative Mary Ekstrom.

Rev. 09/29/04