In Defense of Marriage

by: kristia cavere | published: 06 27, 2011

Shortly before 10:30 on Friday night, New York’s state Senate voted 33 to 29 in favor of same-sex “marriage.” The four Republicans who voted for the bill provided the small margin that was enough to pass this into law.

In the 31 states where citizens were allowed to vote on the issue, the voters in all 31 states have voted in favor of traditional marriage. But 33 state Senators have now taken away the right of all New Yorkers to decide for ourselves what marriage should be. Despite the question of the ethics allowing only a few politicians, rather than the entire electorate of a state, to decide how to define an age-old institution, the more important question is what good is gay marriage for society?

The gay rights movement and their liberal allies are trying to define a sexual friendship as a marriage. There have been intense attachments of love between the same sex as long as time has existed. The bond between brothers-in-arms at war is one common instance. Another is the strong attachment between female friends, who oftentimes know more about each other than family members or spouses. But this complex and intense connection does not make a marriage.

What the gays wish to do is highlight the sexual component of a great friendship. The same-sex marriage endorsements from a few misguided Hollywood stars and screwed up politicians both redefines and reduces marriage and the sexuality within it. By making the sexual component such an important aspect of the relationship, it further encourages wanton sexuality and friends-with-benefits. The emphasis of the physical aspect of the relationship excludes other areas of the connection.

Being gay is a decision to act on impulses to physically recreate with the same sex over the opposite gender. Nature endorses certain capacities to reinforce the choice of the opposite sex. Neurological and hormonal reactions that occur between a man and woman to bind them to each other sexually is a natural clue to the male/female bond that cannot be overlooked as we discuss the nature of physical unions.

What is most disturbing about the states that have passed gay marriage into law, such as Massachusetts, is the progressive controlled education system teaching impressionable and uncertain kids how to be homosexual. The purported objective of sexual education should be to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, not have tolerance programs indoctrinate children into not just accepting but adopting an alternative lifestyle.

Instead public schools have become the vehicle for ideological procreation in a population that cannot procreate for itself. And the multitude of laws and sanctions for anyone questioning the correctness of gay marriage shows nothing but intolerance for traditionally minded Americans.

Examples abound of politicians, athletes, and entertainers as well as regular people who are opposed to gay marriage being treated with hatred. Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, the only in his party to vote against the gay marriage bill, has withstood death threats against him and his family. Former New York Giant David Tyree, who spoke openly in favor of traditional marriage, has been subjected to a bigotry and viciousness that would never be tolerated if it was directed at the opposing side.

The right of any individual, regardless of sexuality, to decide matters of inheritance, child custody, and medical decisions is already available to all Americans through estate planning. And everyone should have the right to privacy and to choose how they will live in the privacy of their home, with any arrangement they wish. However, the institution of marriage is not a private matter but a public one and is therefore everybody’s business.

The government has always restricted the bounds of who is eligible for marriage. There are laws regarding persons being of a certain age and not marrying an immediate blood relative. Social libertarians who believe that the government shouldn’t decide who marries because it should be up to the church of the couple, have even more of a ridiculous argument than those on the left who think that marriage is only about increasing the contentment of two people. When any person can instantly form their own church with any doctrine they wish, it will be anarchy to allow tens of thousands of different religious organizations to determine the legal issues of marriage. This would in effect allow any church, no matter how or when they were established, to have the authority to decide who is married or divorced or able to marry.

There are numerous laws in place regarding sensitivity, hate crimes, and medical and inheritance issues to accommodate the two percent of the population that is homosexual. But enacting legislation that would redefine an ancient concept of marriage for the entire population is uncalled for, as the purpose of marriage is the stabilization of society, not only to make two individuals happy.

add a comment