In researching this week’s editorial (see facing page), I read several journal articles which were downright scary. The topic was the disturbing proposals about same-sex marriages. The articles pointed out some frightening consequences if such nonsense ever becomes law.

Ryan T. Anderson, in an article titled “Beyond Gay Marriage” in The Weekly Standard, pointed out the underlying implications of accepting gay marriages. He explains that if we agree that marriage is not to be defined as one man and one woman, then the possibilities would be endless. For example, why not really be tolerant and allow one man to have several women. Or, one woman could have several men.

It might be said that no one would argue such nonsense, but actually that was exactly the argument put forward by signers to a full page ad in The New York Times who proclaimed, “a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partners, households, kinship relationships and families.”

One bizarre example of such a relationship was described as two gay couples who could arrange to have children and then decide on how they could be raised in one or the other household. Talk about gender confusion!

The people who signed onto this craziness were not the crazies of the world but prominent people such as Gloria Steinem and a host of college professors from some of our very prominent institutions. In other words, they were serious and they’re being taken seriously.

The author of the articles writes, “These leaders have done no more than to affirm the logical implications of abandoning the conjugal conception of marriage as the exclusive union of sexually complementary spouses.”

On the other hand, as the magazine article points out, another group of scholars recently published The Princeton Principles in which they use reason and common sense (two favorites of Pope Benedict XVI) to argue the case for protecting marriage. The team included Vatican favorite Mary Ann Glendon.

Their studies concluded: “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two-biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parents families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks for poor outcomes.”

You could conclude that government has an interest in protecting family life since strong families are the best ways of protecting children, who after all are what all this is about.

Legislation is not the entire answer but it is reinforcement for what we should be doing on the local level. Churches, civic organizations, public and private schools, all should be doing everything they can to encourage strong family life. Intellectual, religious and artistic leaders will point the way and the politicians will follow.

Right now, the problem is that the popular culture has embraced an attitude of live and let live. Divorce, abandonment, and alternatives to family living seem to be the desired choices.

If you are reading this, you probably don’t buy into the slippery slope that most of the world seems to be on. If you’re a Catholic and take seriously your commitment to the faith, you believe in the primacy of the family.

But most of us are silent in public on these issues. We don’t want to get involved. We’re too busy to push the argument. If we continue with this inactivity, marriage as we know it will be one of the casualties. Right now, there are dangerous pieces of legislation in Albany that will erode the moral fabric of our society. Contact your local representatives, especially your State Senator, and tell them you are opposed to legalizing same-sex unions in this state. You can also log onto www.nyscatholic.org and the N.Y.S.. Catholic Conference will assist you in contacting your state officials.

If you would like to read more about a pro-marriage agenda, try David Blankenhorn’s “The Future of Marriage.” In it, he makes the case for a campaign to lower divorce rates, decrease out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and provide as many children as possible with the care and protection of their mother and father.

Family life as a priority has been around much longer than the pro-gay push for same-sex unions. Hopefully, it will be our priority for many centuries to come.