Another Civil Right?
See if these quotes sound familiar.
“These types of marriages are abominable, according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would pollute America.”
“Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.”
It’s not what you’re thinking; these quotes are not about gay marriage.
Opponents of interracial marriage spoke these words decades ago. That same prejudice and bigotry that once was focused on interracial marriage is now focused on same-sex marriage.
President Bush said, “The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges” in a statement on May 14th. I assume he means instances like when the Supreme Court, in a fit of judiciary activism, redefined marriage in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. This decision ruled laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. At the time, the majority of Americans were against interracial marriage, like the majority of people polled now are against same-sex marriage.
One of the purposes of the judiciary branch is to ensure the tyranny of the majority does not infringe on the rights of the minority. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If you take away a couple’s marriage, you’re taking away the right to hospital visitation, property inheritance, family leave, and right to sue for wrongful death in many states. This is just a small list of the legal benefits of marriage.
What is even more revealing is how many of the leaders of the movement against gay marriage are now being outed as homosexuals themselves.
Representative Edward Schrock was caught soliciting for gay sex on telephone dating services, and has chosen to not run for reelection. The two-term republican has a history of voting against civil rights for gays. He voted against the Weldon Amendment to H.R. 2944, which would have allowed a person to buy health insurance for their partner out of their own pocket. He also voted for H.R. 7, a bill to make faith-based initiatives exempt from state and local civil rights laws, allowing them to discriminate against gays. He was also a cosponsor of the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Representative David Dreier, chairman of the House Rules Committee, chairman of the California Republican House delegation, and co-chairman of Californians for Bush was just outed this weekend. He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have banned discrimination against gays in hiring. He also voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, and against and amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act that would recognize and provide benefits to couples if they were in a state that allowed same-sex marriage.
When you can hire your lover as your chief of staff, you don’t need to worry about laws against discrimination. Dreier’s live-in boyfriend earns $156,000 a year, more than any other chief of staff to any House committee chair. Jay Banning, the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration for the Republican National Convention was just outed this weekend.
The conservative movement has moved too far from its core beliefs. While its political leaders are spouting hate against homosexual relationships, its corporate side is itself destroying the sanctity of Christian marriage. Conservative Fox Network creates such reality TV programs as “Married by America”, “Trading Spouses”, and “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire.”
Ayn Rand herself said, “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.” She’s not exactly a bleeding heart.
You don’t need to support an individual’s lifestyle, but allowing them the same rights granted others seems like something the founding fathers would have wanted.
Unlawful and Unnatural?
Childhood is a significant part of life. Would you like to be a child growing up with two moms or two dads? I’m sure most would not, including myself. The issue of legalizing gay marriage is increasing controversial throughout American society.
I firmly believe that gay marriage should not be legalized. This is in no way to be intended as or to be taken as gay-bashing. By now, I’m sure you can guess which stance I’m going to be taking in regards to gay marriage. Marriage is intended to be between a man and woman. This is how it has been since the beginning of time, and that is my firm belief on the topic. Hypothetical situation: gay marriage becomes legal throughout America. Then what? Legalized polygamy? Once one door is opened, it can lead to many others opening as well. No pun intended.
Because of my religious faith, I believe that it is unreasonable to grant gay marriage to those who wish for it. Marriage is a sacred sacrament, intended to grant a union between one man and one woman. Why should this be changed? This is how life is created! The Michigan Catholic Conference states: “Marriage between a man and a woman serves a unique place in society by allowing for the creating and education of children within the context of a family. Marriage is for the benefit of children- who are best served when raised by a father and a mother in a committed relationship.”
People living in this situation who have their own or decide to adopt children, will further lead their families into a more awkward living situation than other families. Living with two mothers or two fathers has the ability to be devastating to a child as well as the family.
This type of situation should be left alone, just as the issue of legalizing gay marriage should. I understand everyone wants to have a recognized union with the one they are in love with, or want to be with, but isn’t a commitment or union enough? To me, that is more than enough to prove to the world that you are in a same sex relationship.
I know, I know…everyone has equal rights and therefore should be granted the same rights to marriage, right? Many groups throughout Michigan State’s campus, such as Students for Bush and College Republicans support the President for his reasoning on gay marriage. Meredith Phillis, communications director for the MSU chapter of Students for Bush, enthusiastically expressed her acceptance of Bush’s gay marriage policy.
“Bush is about keeping the family unit, the traditional family unit, as the corner stone of this great country, and that is why I support him,” she explained. “I believe that being gay is a choice, not hereditary, and I am so proud to support Bush because he himself realizes that it is a choice do to his strong faith and regular referral to the bible in his daily life…he does not believe in gay marriage, and that is why, on this issue, I believe that he is the best candidate.”
Meredith, as well as many other students on campus, supports the prevention of legalizing gay marriage throughout America. Traditional family units must be preserved: mother, father, and children. It is my firm wish that things should be kept this way.
Another Civil Right?