The Case Against Gay Marriage

Over the past several months if there was one issue that is on everyone’s mind besides the war in Iraq, the high gas prices and, oh yea, the “strong economy,” it’s gay marriage. Should homosexual couples be able to be federally recognized as a married couple? Should they be able to at least be recognized from a civil point-of-view? The answer to these preceding questions should be “no,” however the way that some of my fellow “right wingers” are going about it is dead wrong.

President Bush wants a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a something that can only be between a man and a woman. He calls it the “ideal” thing. Yes, well having a president who won the majority of the popular vote is also the “ideal” thing, and I didn’t see him complain about winning the election due to his majority of Electoral College votes. Now, I guess he has some right asking for an amendment that bans gays from marrying due to activist judges who seem to think that it is alright to force states to allow homosexuals the right to be married. I mean come on, if one group says gay marriages have to be legal, can’t there be someone that tries to force us to ban gay marriages? Sorry, two wrongs don’t make a right. Both the activist judges, (i.e. the Massachusetts State Supreme Court), and President Bush are wrong.

Now, why are they wrong? President Bush is wrong because the US Constitution is a contract that gives us, the citizens of the United States rights, while it limits the powers of the federal government. Therefore issues that aren’t dealt with in the US Constitution become state issues. So right from the beginning, the issue of gay marriages is a state issue. The activist judges are wrong because not only are they like President Bush and are trying to shove their beliefs down our throats, but also because there is suppose to be a separation between church and state. Now, I am the first to say in an argument that nowhere in our Constitution can the words “separation between church and state,” be found. However, since a previous activist US Supreme Court decided, (wrongfully), that our Constitution calls for such a separation, I will indulge their findings for the sake of this argument.

This being said, why are judges getting involved in a religious issue? Well, I’ll tell you why, and it’s not because they, (the judges), are completely wrong. They are getting involved because our federal government recognizes heterosexual marriages and gives them benefits that are not given to single people or gay couples. Therefore, our federal government already deals with religious issues.

So what do we do? Well that’s easy and there are a couple of ways to go about it. First, we could accept the fact that this is a state and not a federal issue and allow the voters (not the state legislatures, but the citizens as a whole), in each state the right to vote on whether or not gay couples can have civil marriages that are recognized by their individual states. Some states, such as California, Massachusetts and probably even Rhode Island would allow for such civil unions, while the more conservative states, (i.e. Texas and Alabama), would probably vote against the recognition of civil unions. That would certainly be leaving this issue up to the will of the people and not one person in Washington, D.C. or a few people on a judge’s bench.

The other way to go about it, (and my personal choice), would be to stop the hypocrisy and have both the federal and state governments stop recognizing heterosexual marriages. Why should married people get certain rights and tax breaks? Having kids or adopting children does benefit society so parents should get some tax breaks however, just being married does nothing to better us as a society. If we ended the recognition of marriages as a whole, I would think that it would help us all out with our taxes. Just because a married couple gets a tax break, that doesn’t mean that some single person isn’t picking up the rest of the tab.

The main reason that I see homosexuals wanting to be able to get married is because heterosexuals can be and to top it off, they get tax relief also. Therefore, although I do not blame the homosexual community for their stance on the issues, at the same time I do not think they should be able to married. All couples however, should be able to name their partners as their caregivers in times of ill health (i.e. if a gay person is in the hospital due to AIDS complications, their partner should not e shut out, even if the family of the sick person wants them out). We live in a free society and as such we should be able to decide who we leave things to.

Marriages however, should only be between a couple and God, and it should be up to the individual churches as to whether or not they will allow same sex couple to be married under their faith.

Posted by Forrester at April 5, 2004 12:21 PM