|
The Case for Traditional Marriage
by Mike Hannesschlager
Thursday, July 8, 2004
FT. WORTH, TX
Within the next two or three years, American society will change irrevocably. Most likely the decision to change will be made for us, probably by the nine robed gods in the nation's highest court. At least five and probably six of these silent adjudicators will vote for the nonviolent upheaval of the of marriage and family, regardless of the consequences.
To hear the left say it, America is unjust until marriage is changed to fit their preference. But is this true? Those who practice homosexuality should be equally protected under law (in some states, they have more than equal rights - mug a man because he practices homosexuality and you may incur a stiffer penalty than you will for mugging an old lady for her money.) |
.
|
They can marry - but the kind of marriage they want doesn't meet the current definition.
It should be stated up front that this is not a call for homosexuals to "jump back in the closet," nor is it intended to shame them. Rather it is an attempt to lay out a case to preserve an institution that is essential for the continuation of our culture.
There are three very serious problems with our government recognizing homosexual marriage, and one possible consequence of the debate that could threaten Constitutional governance itself, if allowed to occur.
Contrary to popular claims, homosexual marriage is not a natural right that must be met by government.
Of all the falsifiable claims that the left makes with regards to homosexual "marriage", one of the most common is the comparison between the fight for "marriage rights", and the fight for equal black citizenship a generation ago.
African American ministers who remember that fight, which was based on Biblical ideals of equality and justice, have let it be known that they are offended.
Reverend Phil Davis of Nations Ford Community Church in North Carolina had this to say:
"That line of reasoning denigrates and throws dirt on the blood of blacks who have suffered through slavery, Jim Crow and bigotry, and have died because of the color of their skin,” Davis said. “That the homosexual radical agenda would use the blood of our ancestors to justify their immoral cause and bring guilt and manipulation upon others is an atrocity.”
Reverend Davis may be overly passionate here, but the message is clear. Race and color are absolutes and cannot be changed. For the government to deny equal justice under the law for blacks was immoral.
Homosexual behavior - in fact sexual behavior of any kind - is clearly a choice. It is not an unalterable self-possession that defines who a person is. It is not an ethnicity, a race or religion. Those who practice homosexuality may believe that this is the orientation given them at birth (whether this is in fact true belongs in another article.) Yet it is abundantly clear that sexual orientation is a changeable quantity, unlike race or color. No one yet has changed their race or sex. No one should be asked by the state to change their religion.
Thus there is no similarity between the quest for minority civil rights and homosexual marriage, either in moral substance or legal quantification. It should not be considered the same thing.
Homosexual marriage would give government approval to an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle.
Marriage has always been closely linked with children, for those fortunate enough to produce them. I'll save you the gory details (drop by your kids elementary school for that), but suffice to say that men and women fit together rather well. God (or nature, if you prefer) seems to have planned it that way.
Those of the same sex most definitely do not fit together. Our bodies were not intended to work that way. The proper plumbing just isn't there. This behavior results in a host of tragic and terrible repercussions, both physical and psychological. It can be seen in the low life expectancy of those who practice homosexuality, the pathologically high average number of sexual partners, the spread of infectious disease and higher suicide rates.
It need hardly be stated that government possesses enormous cultural influence. Ought we to lie (more than we already do), and claim through marriage recognition that homosexual activity is equal to healthy married relationships? Clearly it is a serious health hazard, not to mention the psychological and emotional trauma that seems to accompany the behavior.
After homosexual marriage, what next?
Adoption of children by homosexuals, which occurs too often now, would accelerate with homosexual marriage. Children adopted and indoctrinated into this destructive and painful lifestyle will hardly have a chance.
Homosexuality will be taught more aggressively in public schools. In fact in many big city districts this is happening already. Homosexual groups hold "seminars" in the school auditorium, indoctrinating youngsters to accept their homosexual lifestyle as normal and safe and perhaps even desirable. With state-approved legitimization of marriage it would be most difficult to stop this from happening in schools. After all, it's legal, right? And if it's legal and equal to normal marriage, why shouldn't children learn to accept it?
Bottom line: homosexual marriage has the capability to cause more people to fall into homosexuality. And this is not a healthy thing, for individuals or society.
Is there another agenda at work? Finally, it must be understood that the left isn't just after the "right" to marry. Fundamentally, they are after absolute universal acceptance of their lifestyle, and they will use government force, if necessary, to get that acceptance.
This is a bold statement. What I am essentially saying here is that the left is bent on subverting the Constitution to use the hammer of government to silence those who oppose them. What evidence is there?
In Canada, it is now illegal to engage in "hate speech" against homosexuals. The House of Commons passed Bill C-250 last year, which makes it a crime to engage in hate speech against homosexuals. And what is "hate speech"? Apparently whatever the government says it is.
In 2001, a Canadian was fined $4500 for running an ad in a newspaper that referenced Bible verses against homosexuality.
In Sweden, a similar law has been considered.
So let us not be surprised if the next step is to pass laws rendering criticism of homosexuality "hate speech." Hate crimes laws are already in place all over the country, many of which recognize "sexual orientation" as a category akin to race, color or religion. All it would take is the addition of a hate speech statute, and speech against homosexuals could be criminally actionable.
And this would mean the end of the Constitution - what's left of it anyway.
But even if the above never happens, there is ample evidence that homosexual marriage is a bad decision for America. Let's not walk down that path. |
 Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times columnist Mike Hannesschlager.
Copyright © 2004 The Coffee Shop Times
|
