Posted on 05/20/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by RedBeaconNY
Same-Sex Marriage: The Battle of our Time
Same-sex marriage can only be described as a volatile issue in today’s American society. It has sparked heartfelt national debate. Emotions everywhere are flaring. Politicians and pundits, organizations and students- all strive to make their voices heard. And they are heard loud and clear. The citizens of the United States of America stand on two sides of a chasm over the issue of same-sex marriage. Little factual information exists to support or refute the legalization of gay marriage, but opinions abound. There are those who vehemently oppose the idea, arguing that it erodes the values of traditional society and society itself. Others claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would devalue the age-old sacred tradition. There are also those who call gay marriage a matter of rights, declaring that two loving individuals should not be barred from such a basic civil right. So whose claim is correct? What is the best option for America regarding gay marriage? Although many vocal homosexual activists would push the acceptance of a ‘loving’ same-sex marriage onto all Americans, it should not be written into American law, because it is not only immoral, it is against the public opinion and serves no constructive purpose.
Homosexuals have come a long way towards “equality” in recent years. Just under two years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the last of state laws that criminalized homosexuality, ending so-called legislative discrimination, and opening a path to same-sex marriage. Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, allowed 4,000 same-sex couples to marry in 2004 in open defiance of California state law, earning him a place in Time magazine’s list of most influential people (Eisenberg). Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage. Connecticut has legalized civil unions, the first to do so without the ‘help’ of the courts (Connecticut). The American Civil Liberties Union, ‘our nation’s guardian of liberty’, has dedicated itself to fighting for gay and lesbian rights as well. In 1996, the ACLU fought and won a court battle to invalidate a Colorado constitutional amendment “passed by public referendum” that prohibited “the state from enacting gay rights laws.” Its branch in Tennessee is battling to overturn a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (ACLU). This and other powerful allies of homosexuals are hard at work for marriage equality. So what’s wrong with allowing, even promoting same-sex marriage?
According to English law, from whence came much of America’s legal concepts, marriage is a voluntary legal contract between a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage is considered by some to be the backbone of the family unit, and ‘vital to the preservation of morals and civilization’ (LII). The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which was signed by President Clinton in 1996 clearly defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Thus, there can be no such thing as a same-sex marriage. This is not a new concept; it was only passed into law to “make explicit what has been known under federal law for over 200 years” (Defense).
Obtaining a marriage license can be compared to receiving a high school diploma. In order to receive a Regents-level diploma at Pittsford Mendon High School, one must have met a certain set of criteria. It is necessary to have twenty-one credits divided between core subjects, the arts, physical education, and foreign language. Failure to meet the standards renders one ineligible to receive the diploma (Pittsford). If the administration started passing out diplomas to anybody who wanted one, regardless of eligibility, a diploma would lose its value. Likewise, there are certain requirements in order to be eligible to marry, varying from state to state. One set requirement, though, is that the two people applying for a marriage must be of the opposite sex. Allowing anybody to marry, in total disregard of the standards, would cheapen the institution.
A strong marriage strengthens society by its consistency and stability, just as an instable marriage is quite often destructive to its surroundings. Matt Daniels believes that “there is an integral connection between the institution of marriage and the well-being of children in the United States.” He points out that: “Research now shows that the percentage of fatherless families in a community more reliably predicts that community’s rate of violent crime than any other factor, including race. The same can be said for rates of child poverty. In fact, interestingly, white children in fatherless families are significantly more likely to live in poverty than African-American children who have a father in the home” (Daniels).
The absence of a father is clearly detrimental to his children, regardless of status. Likewise, a family without a mother suffers. Mothers are generally more compassionate, and more understanding by nature than their male counterparts through their inborn maternal instinct. The ideal mother builds a safe, inviting, nurturing environment in which to live. Mothers tend to sense out problems that would otherwise go unnoticed, and correct them. Both genders provide a unique aspect in a home, and are equally important. Thus, strong heterosexual marriages should be supported and encouraged.
Timothy Dailey cites relationship duration as one major difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships last much longer. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, ’57.7 percent’ of women stay married for at least twenty years (Dailey). In sharp contrast, only five percent of homosexual relationships last more than twenty years (Gaywire). Some may state that marriage should still be justified, because after all, Brittany Spears was married to and divorced from her high school sweetheart in less than a day. However, this is far from the norm, and should not be allowed to become commonplace. While some homosexual couples may be capable of a long-term relationship, the frequency in which it occurs does not justify cheapening the age-old tradition of marriage for the whims of a select few.
Among same-sex marriage’s largest and most vocal contesting parties are the Jewish and Christian religions. The Jewish Torah strongly condemns homosexuality, using the harshest of biblical language. Leviticus 18:22 states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Bible). In the patriarchal society of the Jews, this can be interpreted into modern language as: A man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman, for it is immoral. Traditional Christians believe in the sanctity of marriage. The leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley believes that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” (Hinckley). It is a sacred bond with the purpose of procreation and rearing of children in a secure environment. The New Testament uses no uncertain terms on what God has ordained, in Mark 10:9. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Bible). Pope Paul VI taught that there is no “moral justification to these acts” of homosexuality, and that “homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society” (Paul VI). All sects agree on the matter of caring for a homosexual- he should not be left alone, but helped to overcome his trial, as it is seen through the eyes of a theologian. While homosexuals are law-abiding citizens for the most part, homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Jews and Christians alike, and should not be celebrated with marriage.
In his columns, Evan Wolfson of the gay rights organization Freedom to Marry instructs and informs “fair-minded” people everywhere on the importance of the acceptance of marriage for homosexuals. “Americans believe in fairness, freedom, and equality for all,” he says (Wolfson). To him, the answer to gay marriage is within this simple statement- equality for all. Indeed, Americans hold certain “Truths to be self-evident”, among which is “all Men are created equal” (Jefferson). All men are indeed created equal, but that equality can be lost. For example, a convicted felon does not share the same rights as a law-abiding citizen. His rights, in part, have been revoked, thus dissolving his equality. America’s government is also one “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people” (Lincoln). The government, called a democratic republic because its citizens choose its representatives, is directed by the public for public benefit. Thus, if it is in the popular consensus of Americans, as one would assume it is from his article, homosexuals should be allowed to get married tomorrow! Wolfson claims that “most Americans… understand that gay people… want and need the freedom to marry” (Wolfson). However, a recent Gallup poll has found American opinions to be quite to the contrary. Only twenty percent of Americans are for “gay marriage.” A slightly larger portion would allow for civil unions, but not marriage for homosexuals. And, contrary to Wolfson’s words, forty-five percent of Americans support neither marriage nor civil unions for homosexuals (Newport). If any group has the best interest of American society in mind, it is the American society, and its voice should be duly heeded.
A large percentage of homosexuals simply are not interested in a formal union. They are well off enough that they do not need the benefits marriage offers, or they have other reasons for avoidance. For instance, same-sex unions have been offered to homosexuals in the state of Nevada by a law passed in 2000. Assuming that 2.5 percent of Vermont is homosexual, both males and females, 8900 people have been granted the right for unification. Surprisingly, given all of the activism, statistics from January 2004 show that only 936 couples have entered into civil unions in Vermont (Dailey). This breaks down to only twenty-one percent of the gay population of that state. Taken to a nationwide scale, allowing twenty-one percent of a group making up an estimated five percent of the country to cheapen marriage is neither legitimate nor fair towards heterosexuals. Why don’t others want marriage? One homosexual woman, Paula L. Ettelbrick, believes that marriage ‘will not liberate’ lesbians and gay men. Ettelbrick advocates that homosexuality is an identity all of its own, and should not have to be institutionalized with marriage. Doing such would force homosexuals to try to fit a mold they cannot possibly fill (Dudley). If homosexuals must insist on a union to celebrate their love, it should be unique to homosexuals, such as a civil union. A civil union, as written in Vermont law, “grants the same state benefits, civil rights, and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples” without degrading marriage (Infoplease).
The issue of same-sex marriage is one of the major social battles of our time. A handful of activist social progressives are fighting with all of their cunning devices and word play for its approval. The silent majority does not agree. Americans need to take a strong stand on marriage, and preserve its nature. The majority must speak up. Marriage is too much of a tradition, too sacred to be altered by activist social progressives. Civil unions are a very plausible possibility for homosexuals seeking official recognition. Ultimately the decision should be left to be decided by the average citizen, not the courts, nor a handful of fringe citizens. Americans must take a moral stand on marriage and protect it from the tinkering of law-makers and activists. The true colors of the country must shine through the haze of the battle.
Please ping the Homosexual Agenda ppls. Thanks.
pingin' myself for later. see thread on (homo)sexuality in schools as well:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407204/posts
I simply told my instructor that homosexuals already have the right to marry. In fact, no one has stopped them from marrying. A homosexual man is free to marry. Of course, marriage means that the other party is of the opposite sex. (Definition of marriage)
Some people, however, insist on bastardizing language itself.
Tricky. I like your thinking ;)
Thanks for posting this. Read later placemarker.
A+. But note that the word "gender" doesn't refer to people, but language. It's used incorrectly all the time, though.
Good work, and good that your teacher is not an (deleted).
What fields of work are you looking into for your future?
Homosexual Agenda Ping - a great term paper from a budding young conservative.
Give him your grades.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
With high school students like him and that Tim guy out in Santa Rosa, I feel hopeful about the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.