As those who know me are well aware, I am strongly against same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with homosexuals; I really don’t want to know the details of people’s sex lives, and if they don’t parade those details in front of me, I am quite happy.
However, any educated person has to acknowledge that every civilization has had some form of marriage between a man and a woman. Why is this, one might ask? How often do governments ask you to register your relationship with your grandmother? Your best friends? Your nieces, nephews and grandchildren? Why is this one relationship between a man and a woman so significant. Is love so important? Hardly. No government really cares to register your relationship, whatever it is, if it has nothing to do with anything but feelings. No, marriage is not about love. Marriage is about the one thing that distinguishes the relationship between a man and a woman that separates that relationship from any other. That is children.
Yes, the purpose of marriage is not the love, itself, but the consequences of heterosexual love…the jealousies, angers, affections and, yes, ultimately, the children that invariably result from heterosexual love. Marriage registers the children, determines their heredity and bloodlines, determines their inheritance from their family and determines, for as long as the records exist, from where this individual came. Marriage records the comings and goings of a civilization and, for that reason, is the foundation stone of that civilization. Destroy marriage, and you destroy that civilization, much as if the mortar that holds the bricks of your house is not securely set, it will erode away and your house will eventually come down.
Now, some will say, “what difference does it make if we allow gay people the same benefits as married people? What effect does it have on your marriage?” For starters, our legal terms have definitions for a reason. We currently (like most societies and faith communities for thousands of years) define marriage as the consensual and conjugal union of one man and one woman, a union intended to be permanent, exclusive, and centered around potential procreation. Our government defines marriage in this way because this type of union provides many benefits to our state as a whole.
Permitting gay “marriage” would not simply allow our current definition of marriage to exist alongside the new homosexual “marriage.” This would completely redefine marriage as we know it. Instead of being a union centered around the potential procreation unique to a male-female union and the benefit of the union to the public, the new definition of marriage would focus merely on the emotional bond between any two people.
The law would treat gender as irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Even an article in the liberal Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy recognized that the new genderless marriage would completely eradicate our marriage laws.
Furthermore, keep in mind that laws do not operate in a vacuum independent of one another. A legal definition of marriage not only determines who can marry, but it also affects the way “marriage” and “spouse” are interpreted in countless other laws and policies such as education policy, family law, and even laws pertaining to hunting licenses—to name a few.
It is entirely misleading to claim that there will be no effect when replacing our current definition of marriage with a new genderless definition focused not on potential children and a public benefit, but on the emotions of two people. No one has ever claimed that allowing gay “marriages” would make a heterosexual marriage less legitimate or endangered. However, a completely new definition of marriage would affect all Americans
[CLICK HEREto read more about the consequences of redefining marriage.]
Is this not discrimination? Of course it is not. Remember, pointing out a difference is not discrimination, if the difference is real…and the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is what defines the difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage…the ability to have children. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex…and the same prohibition against doing so. We are not guaranteed the right to marry the one you love in life. Very often that goal is beyond our reach…you cannot marry your mother or your sister. It just is…
Is there no hope, then? Of course there is hope. Homosexuals AND heterosexuals can benefit from civil unions. In this they can almost all the rights necessary to form a firm and sustaining relationship…just not marriage. The difference is just a word…and the knowledge that homosexuals ARE different in their sexual preferences. It might be something hard to acknowledge that this difference exists, but we are all different, somehow.
And that is the point. Majorities have rights, also.