|
Gay Marriage
written February 25th-March 18th, 2004 Recently, President Bush endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to "defend marriage" by banning gay marriages. The fact that the President and many Conservatives feel that there is a need to amend the Constitution implies that gay marriage is constitutional or at least not unconstitutional. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco not only believes that banning same-sex marriages is against the State Constitution, but he has also been issuing thousands of marriage licenses to same-gender couples in his city in recent days. This has enflamed the debate over gay marriage, an issue which, like most every issue our President brings up, divides the country. So, should the Constitution be amended or should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Joey used to be against the idea of gay marriage, but now he doesn't really care one way or the other. Although I too have fallen into "the Liberal trap" recently, I have been in support of same-sex marriages as far back as I've known Joey. He didn't understand why I would support such a union. Of course, I wasn't picturing the old men with beards kissing on the news. I just wanted something symbolic, even just a ring or necklace. I was always a sap for the romantic, but I wasn't about to wear a dress! What Joey saw was the idea, that marriage should be a husband, a wife, and 2.5 kids. Now he sees marriage a bit differently, though he still sees no place for him in it. Conservatives up in arms over the issue of gay marriage say that marriage is a sacred institution. They're fighting to protect and uphold a "classical" form of marriage where the man goes off to work while the wife serves him. Perhaps they don't talk for twenty years and they get a divorce after one of them has an affair. Joey sees marriage as a mockery long before gay marriages in San Francisco or even before the staggering divorce rate, infidelity, or forty-eight hour "Britney" marriages. There was a time when women didn't have the right to vote or any say in their marriages. Their husbands could beat them and nothing could legally be done. In the Bible, where many Conservatives see that "sacred institution," daughters were sold to their husbands by their fathers, going from one master to the other. Exactly what part of marriage are we trying to protect; the Biblical or the Traditional? Really, neither. It's as Joey explained; they see the same ideal he did. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Even the Bible makes that clear. The only "institution" that is upheld by banning same-gender marriages is the sacred institution of intolerance to change. It's the same institution that kept women as second class citizens for millennia. Of course, that's just my opinion (though a refreshing change from my previous statements about women, specificly "soccer moms"). Recently, Larry King had a debate over this very issue (click here or here for the complete transcript). To argue the intelectual/legal aspects of gay marriage, he had as guests Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Representative Marilyn Musgrave, the Republican woman from Colorado who proposed the Amendment. To argue the emotional/moral side of gay marriage, he also had Chad Allen, an actor, producer, and activist who was "outed" by tabloids in 1996, and Pastor John MacArthur of California's Grace Community Church. It was an interesting debate which I felt was clearly won on an emotional level by Chad Allen but not so clearly won on an intellectual level by Mayor Newsom. The intellectual and legal arguments were both equal in my mind. It was simply that the Mayor was more respectful than Representative Musgrave, who didn't take the Mayor or his arguments seriously and kept making sarcastic jokes such as, "I just wonder if the mayor is going to have increased fees when group marriage takes place." The arguments over the moral aspects were more civil, though far more emotional. When asked by King why he would want to be married, Chad explained, "You know, I'll be honest with you. If you'd asked me this question a year ago, I wouldn't have cared. I would have said, 'Why would I want to get involved with that institution? Why would I want to have -- ultimately, wind up having my things decided by a court and where they go.' And then I fell in love a year ago. And he's on the road right now, and when I wake up in the morning, I miss him a lot. I miss him right in my belly. And for the first time in my life, I started thinking about this institution of marriage and what my parents talked about, about building a life with somebody else. And when I woke up today, the president told me that I couldn't have that. The president said he would -- they turned the Constitution around and make it a document of exclusion and tell me that I'm a second-class citizen. That's not OK." Pastor MacArthur's argument was that "it would destroy the family. I mean, obviously, God designed the family to be a man and woman to produce a child. It is the DNA, it's the genetic structure of civilization. If you don't have that, you don't have civilization. So you're striking at the very core of its existence." The emotional argument took a turn in Allen's favor when King asked the Pastor which sin was greater. MacArthur responded, "Yes, well, you're asking me to do something I really can't do, and make a judgment on which sin is better or worse than the other. We've suffered in this country from adultery, divorce, the abuse of children, pedophilia, you name it. I'm not going to classify those in rank. They're sins, and they destroy the family." "And homosexuality is a sin to you?" King asked, adding as the Pastor agreed, "Therefore, it's a choice?" "It's a choice you make. It's a sinful choice." "Did you make a choice to be heterosexual?" "I don't think I had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I think that's a natural thing." "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. In other words, one is a choice and one is not?" "Yes." "So he was unlucky and you're..." "Because -- because you're not talking about -- because it's natural to be heterosexual. That's built..." "What do you mean by natural?" "Well, I mean, that's the way God made us. That's the normal..." "But if he doesn't feel that way, what is he, then? He's not a sinner. It wasn't his decision." "Yes, I think it was his decision." At this point, Allen cut in, saying, "I would love, absolutely love for the pastor to point out for me when in my life I made that decision because I have to tell you, it caused a lot of pain in my family. It caused a lot of pain to me. It's a very, very tough thing that I had to go through. I don't remember making that decision. If I did, maybe can you point it out, but that wasn't the case for me. It's who I am." Once the argument shifted from marriage to attractions, the Pastor couldn't win. As I've said before, the younger generation and indeed any generation that informs itself sees homosexuality as an attraction, not as an act or "lifestyle." Is heterosexuality an act or a lifestyle? Do you have to have sex with (possibly many) members of the opposite sex to be straight? Since attractions are ingrained and don't change, one can not reasonably argue that one attraction is a sin while another is not. Since early childhood, Joey asked himself, "Why would I be committing a sin by having my attractions? I didn't have any control over it, so what was I supposed to do? They say, 'Turn away from it.' How am I supposed to turn away from it?" Indeed the only people who feel that attractions are a choice are those who either simply don't understand or relate and can't make themselves understand, and bisexuals, who could choose to try to only focus on only one of their attractions. How well that works is unclear. What is clear is that telling someone to repent for what they feel or to try to change who they are just leads to self hatred, which is far more self destructive than a "homosexual act" could be. Many Christians believe that, to be holy, homosexuals must be alone or be with a woman and be "cured." The reason that Christians often compare homosexuality to alcoholism is because alcoholism can be "cured." After all, they can't say, "You got screwed by God. It's just the hand you were dealt." So, instead of a homosexual's life being a blessing, it becomes a curse. But why should someone be born cursed? They didn't do anything to deserve it. Yet, the curse doesn't come from God. It comes from man. The Pastor was forced to explain some of his statements, saying, "Let me respond to Chad, too, just on a personal basis, Chad, by saying, I don't think at some point you said, OK, I'm going to be a homosexual. I got two alternatives. You know, I'm going to go be a homosexual. But I do think whatever sin patterns show up in our lives -- and it may be different for us -- we can choose to continue down those paths of sin, whether it's adultery or whatever it is, or we can say, Look, this is sin, and I need to deal with this in my heart. If this is the way I'm being led, it's not right. It doesn't honor God. It's not according to his word. It's not going to ultimately bring blessing on life. I make the choice at that -- I can't make a choice to be a sinner, OK? I am. We all are. But once you start down the path of sin, if you recognize that it is that, then you look to the Lord for the remedy to that." What the Pastor is saying is what Joey was referring to; "turning away" from attractions. There are some people who believe that it is possible to do so and live a happy life. Yet, would you really be happier denying yourself and living life alone or being with someone you love even if others see it as sinful? Indeed, is it even possible? If eating food were a sin, would we be able to control our body's natural hunger? Conservatives would argue that being "pure" is more important than happiness, but what about the joy that Christ speaks of? Conservatives tend to place a great deal of value in a strict, unemotional life. Yet, is that the life we should be living? Indeed we are all sinful as the Pastor attests. In fact, Allen admits this fact, but adds, "And let me tell you where the sin was in my life, as I see it. When I was in high school and kids were getting picked on and I was one of those kids picking on other kids, the ones that couldn't help but show that they were gay, the effeminate boys, and I picked on them and I beat them up. That was a sin for me. The sin for me was hiding who I was, when I was -- when it was dark inside my life and I was hiding who I was and trying to be something else, that was the sin for me. I believe that it's God who's called me to open up and start talking." Larry King turned to Pastor MacArthur and asked, "But don't you feel compassion for the fact that Chad wants only one thing; the same thing you have?" The Pastor responded simply, "Because it's a wrong relationship. It's a sinful relationship. It's an unnatural relationship. It's a relationship that, obviously, common sense tells you can't produce children and care for children in the way that humanity's..." So, the only reason for marriage is reproduction? According to Pastor MacArthur, "Well, of course, not all couples are going to have children but only couples that are male and female are going to have children. And the only way you procreate the race is between a man and a woman." The Pastor has a point that only a male and a female can reproduce. However, that doesn't always mean that they will want to have children or even want the children they do have. What about all the unwanted children that need love? "I'm not denying that on purely a social level those children will be better off being cared by somebody than being left in some foster situation or even worse. I would never deny that. Then I'm back to the bottom line which is that kind of union is sinful before God. " King responded by saying, "But the acts they're doing are not sinful. They're raising two children who people didn't want. That's a wonderful thing. " "That's the good part but the context in which that happens say context that advocates and flaunts the sin of homosexuality which is defined... It's in the word of God, it's unmistakably clear in the Bible." Yet, the Bible doesn't speak of gay marriage or two people of the same gender adopting, which is what Joey and I would like to do one day. The closest relationship in the Bible to what Joey and I have is not some sinful sexual encounter between two unspecified males. It's instead closest to the relationship between Jonathan and David, who loved each other in such a way that "the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Samuel 18:1) As David said, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26) As I said, Joey has no interest in marriage, but I wanted something symbolic. "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1 Samuel 18:3) You could say that two people of the same gender who want to marry are making such a covenant. I don't know if the Pastor and other Conservatives pictures two men or two women making out in front of their adopted children, but I don't see two people of the same gender "flaunting" anything but love. Perhaps they're simply afraid that the children will learn the values of their adopted family and learn to accept such a relationship and become tolerant. As Larry King stated, "John, how about -- here are two people that want to -- they want a family. They want to be a gay couple. They want what you have, you have with your wife. They're asking for that. They want to promise fidelity. They want to promise to love, honor and obey. Why not let them do that?" "Well, they may want a family, but they can't have one." "No, but -- yes, they can. They can adopt." "Well, that -- they can't have one in the way that God designed it. They can't have one." "Well, I'm talking about..." "I mean, they can borrow somebody else's children." Again, we don't live in an ideal world. Those children are not the property of the biological parents to be "borrowed" (you borrow a pencil, not a person). Because I'm against abortion, I can not also be against adoption as the Pastor seems to be. Unwanted, unloved, and just uncaredfor children need a home and someone to love them. Since we don't live in that ideal world, that isn't always the married man and woman who are infertile. It may be a single parent, grandparents, or even two people of the same gender, related or not, who want what someone else took for granted or simply wanted to have a better life. Sometimes the biological parent simply isn't able to care for a child and turns to adoption. The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:16), not that God is heterosexual love between a man and a woman. You can feel love for anyone. You can sometimes choose who you sleep with, but you can never choose who you love. On the legal side of the argument over gay marriage, Representative Musgrave's argument was that the definition of marriage should not be "changed" by a few, such as Mayor Newsom, who believe that it is discriminatory. "What we're talking about here, Larry, is the definition of marriage, changing the definition of marriage. And again, if that's to be done, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives." After all, Californians voted four years ago on a proposition to legalize same-sex marriages and it lost a majority vote. The majority has spoken and the Representative simply sees the Mayor breaking the law. Mayor Newsom, however disagreed: "Yes, Larry, I feel, I must say, when I'm listening to the congresswoman -- and I say this with respect -- that if we wait for popularity in the polls and the people, we still would be talking about interracial marriages in this country. The year I was born, finally, it was some activist judges in Loving versus the State of Virginia that finally recognized that 16 states were being discriminatory in not affording the rights of blacks to marry whites, whites to marry Asians, et cetera. The point is, there's certain principles you stand on and those principles of non-discrimination." Actually, Larry King himself made one of the best arguments against Representative Musgrave's position. "States in the South historically supported a separation of color in the South, and Martin Luther King challenged that. Many states held to it. A black couldn't marry a white in the Southern states. This is 20 years ago that couldn't happen. The legislature didn't change it." In the past, it has often been necessary to break a law in order to challenge it's constitutional validity in the courts. As the Mayor adds, "In 1948, Larry, these were not dissimilar arguments, not quite analogous about the fact that races were put on separate continents around the world because God decreed that they shouldn't in any way, shape or form procreate." The Representative's secondary argument was that "judges should not be legislating. That's the whole problem with this issue. We have three distinct branches of government. Judges should not be legislating. That is the role of the legislature. All those who have spoken tonight in favor of gay marriage again, go through the legislative deliberative process. Carry your own constitutional amendment. Be respectful of the law." Yet, what if the legislature passes a law that's unconstitutional? "Then, it's resolved in the courts." However, she is against challenging the current laws against gay marriage in the courts. What it ends up coming down to is not the law or legal process at all, but that she believes that gay marriage is morally wrong. Yet, what place does the state have regulating religious principles or religious principles regulating the state? According to Pastor MacArthur, "typically, the state is always involved -- always been involved in a marriage and I think -- because the state's responsibility is to uphold what is right, to uphold righteousness." The reason that marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution already is that, as most Conservatives already freely admit, marriage is "a religious institution." It would therefor violate the First Amendment to uphold only one religious definition of marriage. If we are to uphold rights such as the freedom to write this very thought, we must also uphold the separation of church and state. The problem is that the President is governing from a "moral" standpoint. It's fine to hold personal beliefs or faith. It's quite another to impose them on others. According to the Constitution, the government should have no place interfering with the personal lives of it's citizens. It's fine if the Church is upset or morally outraged. It's quite another thing if the Church influences the state to change in accordance to their moral outrage. As Chad Allen says, "What are we so worried about? What are we so scared about? Why all this trouble to prevent me from accepting these privileges while I'm here if God will ultimately take care of it?" In other words, what place does the government have in playing God by being moral judges in the personal lives of people? "Let me answer that personally because the Bible says in no uncertain terms that no homosexual or adulterer will ever inherit the kingdom of God. The question is not open. It's a closed question. " If that is not a judgment (see Luke 6:37), I don't know what is. Pastor MacArthur is not God and we are not God. Yet, Larry King brings the moral argument back to the legal one by suggesting, "Suppose Chad doesn't want into the kingdom of heaven. His right." "I think he does. Don't you?" "What if he doesn't?" Mr. Allen would of course love to go to heaven, but he also realizes that only God can let him in. "Absolutely and if that's the case, great, but however, there may be people that don't. And I don't want this country governed by the word of the Bible, I don't want it. I want this country to be open to people who believe in all kinds of things." As Larry King says, "The state and God are not the same." It's true that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but it's also true that the Pastor's and my faith guarantees freedom from sin. So, if all the upset is over the word marriage, why not simply have civil unions? Perhaps that would even make Joey more comfortable. Allen says, "The bottom line on that for me is we had that debate in this country. We already decided, as a country, that separate but equal was not good enough for us. If that's the case, then it's time that we all stood up and again proclaimed that separate but equal is not good enough for us. And in this case, thank you very much. I appreciate that you're finally going to tell me that it's OK, I can have those same legal benefits that you've allowed everybody else who wants to declare their love. But then you want to tell me that I'm second class because I can't call it marriage? That's not good enough for me." It does seem inevitable that same-sex marriages will be allowed. As for if Joey and I would ever be married, Joey only sees that happening if it's necessary to be married to adopt or to have rights such as hospital visitation. The problem is that Representative Musgrave says, "I do not support civil unions. However, the language, the intent of my amendment reins in the federal judges and the state judges, so you cannot have state courts imposing civil unions. But it's respectful of legislatures that would choose to do that." A constitutional amendment would be likely to prevent same-sex couples from having the same rights as married couples, regardless of what such a union is called. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is known for her Conservative positions, so it's no surprise when she says, "But there are certain positions that I hold. I'm not for legalizing marriages because to me, that's a covenant between a man and a woman and God. And I wasn't for the equalization act that happened in New Jersey, where the children who are up for adoption as newborns could be given equally to a gay or lesbian couple or a heterosexual couple." There is a great deal of resistance to such equal rights. Much of it simply stems from fear. They don't know what will happen if homosexuals and heterosexuals are considered equal in the eyes of the law and that scares them. Fear of the unknown is an incredibly destructive emotion, but one that can easily be remedied with knowledge and understanding. Fights and even wars can often be prevented through communication of ideas until both parties understand where each other is coming from. In this way, fear is innately irrational. One of the fears that Representative Musgrave and others have over same-sex marriages is that it will open the door to all forms of marriage. "What about incest? What about group marriage? What about polygamy? It's destroying the definition of marriage will do exactly that. That's why we need a federal marriage amendment, we need a federal definition to keep federal judges and state judges from forcing gay marriage and who knows what else on this country, and four judges in Massachusetts, arrogant in their black robes, should not be allowed to force gay marriage on this country." She asks, "Are you going to have a polygamy day? Are you going to have a group marriage day? How far is this going to go, Mr. Mayor? I'd just like to know how far you're going to go in defining the law. And please answer that. Is polygamy OK? If you blur the lines of the definition of marriage, Mr. Mayor, how far do you go? I'm really interested. Do you support polygamy?" The problem with her obsession with polygamy and incest is not that they are irrelevant to the argument. Many Conservative Christians likewise have fears that if marriage is not clearly defined as they perceive it to be in the Bible, that other unions, such as incest and polygamy will be allowed. The problem is that, were we truly to followed the Bible, we would have to allow both polygamy and incest. Great godly leaders from Solomon to David were "blessed" with having many wives and, without incest, the human race would have never gone beyond Adam and Eve's children. If we were to follow the Bible, we would have to allow a great deal of things, from slavery to animal sacrifices to being stoned for doing virtually anything, including picking up a stick on the Sabbath. My personal belief is that a union such as marriage simply works out better between two people. I see nothing in the Bible outright saying that, but I can only imagine the kind of fights that went on in the houses of those Biblical men of old who had many wives. I became jealous when Joey was just talking to boys online. Now that he doesn't chat online anymore, he says, "You should be happy." I can only try to imagine how hard it would be to control my feelings if a new love entered Joey's life. The bottom line in the legal argument is that the law, if it is to follow the Constitution, is that the state must either recognize same-sex marriages or not recognize marriage at all. Really, marriage should be left up to the church and the state should universally recognize unions of any kind. On the moral side, the church can feel about the issue of gay marriage however it likes. However, how it ruins marriage, I don't know. The first couple to be married in San Francisco had been together for half a century. Britney Spears' wedding lasted a couple days. Should the church mandate a state law that requires couples to be married for a certain period of time? Such a concept is ridiculous, despite the fact that such unions trivialize marriage far more than two women celebrating their lifetime of love ever could. As Mayor Newsom said in closing, "I hope that there's a day we look back with disbelief at the discussion we had tonight, as we look back with disbelief at the discussion they had during the '40s, '50s and '60s on the issues of interracial marriage." It may be nearly impossible to unlearn something, but hate isn't learned. There is propaganda put out by NBC that says, "Children aren't born to hate. Hate is learned." Without going into their angelic and completely inhuman view of children, I'll say that it is human nature to hate. The boys from The Lord of The Flies didn't have to learn hate any more than they had to learn how to be violent. Yet, just as preachers like Billy Graham have learned to sympathize with homosexuals, the more you know about someone or something, the harder it is to hate. Hate isn't learned, but understanding is. If we can all put ourselves in the shoes of others, we will soon come to understand that which we dismissed so easily as "wrong" is not so simple. The people we hate are just that; people. The more we understand each other, the more we will want everyone to be treated fairly and be seen equally under the law. There was a time when I wanted to be a girl. Society taught me that I had to be one in order to do the things I wanted to do and in order to love the people I wanted to love. And, even if Joey and I are never married, I will always understand why some other couple would and should be allowed to. We should all have the right to pursue happiness in our personal lives without fear of hatred. Fear just leads to more hatred and more fear. It's time we put an end to fear. If that means allowing gay marriage, so be it. Perhaps the divorce rate will finally go down relative to the number of people married. I believe that gay marriage is just a matter of time. That time depends on whether or not this administration continues or another president is elected. Marriage should be about love. So, when I vote against Bush and against a Conerservative administration, I will really be voting for marriage and for tolerance. |
Comments
Against Gay Marriage: "Now the homosexuals, while being spurred on by the left, are pushing for legal 'marriage'. They are striving now to send a nation already teetering on the brink of moral disaster, spiraling down into the dark abyss where all 'once great' nations now lie. The time has come for the silent majority to be silent no more and say: Enough!" (read more) "Widening marriage to include people of the same sex means stripping it of much of its meaning and diminishing it for everybody. This would have a relatively small effect on the lives of people who are already married, and whose notion of marriage is already largely settled, but it would have a profound and harmful effect on future generations of Americans." (read more) "It is understandable that gay citizens would want the government to redefine marriage, and to legalize and pay for their unions. But in the end, if the gay lifestyle is a behavioral choice considered morally wrong by the majority of Americans, a government 'of the people' must be free to decline that request. " (read more) "Gay-marriage devalues the raising of children by their natural parents. Of course gay-marriage devalues marriage and family. Promoting sterile unions as a replacement for marriage could only harm the children—who could only be raised by replacement parents." (read more) "So courts that deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they run directly counter to actual legislative practice in innumerable important areas of society. We must recognize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral code for that of the people. This damage is not merely inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-called 'separation of powers.' It does much worse, for when judges erode the power of the people's representatives to set society's moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large." (read more) "We Americans don’t live in a society governed by Mosaic law. However, neither did the Canaanites. When the Bible speaks of their moral failings in very specific ethical areas, and the consequent downfall of their civilization, there is a lesson not just for a Jewish society but for everyone. The way God sets things up, a society that institutionalizes same-sex unions will ultimately suffer tragic consequences -- 'disgorgement' from its place in the world. What, in very concrete terms, would that mean? Let’s hope we don’t have to find out." (read more) "I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage." (President Bush) Comments Supporting Gay Marriage: "I don't think there's a legal justification to ban gay marriages. Laws should be made according to what's best for the most people, not according to a specific group's beliefs. A truly representative society lends a voice to the entirety of its people, respects their opinions and never denounces any one person or group just because someone else does." (read more) "Where is my gay apocalypse? Over 3,500 gay marriages and, what, no hellfire? I was promised hellfire. And riots. What gives?" (read more) "This isn't really about marriage, though. It's about lust. Which is why I don't understand why everyone thinks fundamentalist Christians are so puritanical. Fundamentalists are the only group who thinks that children should only be raised by heterosexuals who experience a moment of passion. Heterosexual lust is divine. Sounds like a lot of rationalization over guilty pleasures. " (read more) "Further, how can we forget, it is the belief in this principle, sustained by a nation which by in large has the moral fiber to live it, which brings stability to our laws, and longevity to our freedoms. Make our rights the gift of the state, make the law subject to nothing higher than the current man in power, let the shifting sands of amorality be the foundation of our laws, and the Marxists and tyrants of the world have won, and liberty will wash away in a storm." (read more) "Like chickenhawks who blithely send other people's sons to war, the spector of hypocritical conservatives making moral decisions for the rest of us would be laughable if it weren't so real." (read more) "But if history is any indicator of the present, this response should come as no surprise. In 1912 Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia wanted a constitutional amendment to prevent interracial unions on the grounds that 'intermarriage between blacks and whites is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of the pure American spirit.' Is permitting gay marriage such a threat to American society that it needs a constitutional restriction? Or have gays just replaced blacks as the minority community that is openly discriminated against? " (read more) Related Articles: "CNN: Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional" "Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals" (WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman.") "Two scholars face off over gay marriage controversy" "Issues - Gay Marriage in SF and Mass" (variouus viewpoints) "What's Wrong with Gay Marriage???" (various viewpoints) "Conservation Cafe!: gay marriage?" (various viewpoints) "Fanatical Apathy: Save My Marriage" (various viewpoints) "Gay marriage is a hot topic" "What If They Proposed a Constitutional Amendment and Nobody Came?" "Help Save Marriage!" (a petition, stating: "The President has thrown his support behind a constitutional amendment. We need to send a message to Congress urging their support.") "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives" (includes "The real reasons people oppose gay marriage": Just not comfortable with the idea, It offends everything religion stands for, Marriage is a sacred institution, The thought of gay sex is repulsive, They might recruit) "Scientists Counter Bush View. Families Varied, Say Anthropologists" ("The primary organization representing American anthropologists criticized President Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Thursday and gave a failing grade to the president's understanding of human cultures.") "Homosexuality and Christiantity" ("Even within the life of an individual, sexual attraction may make itself known as a choice, not as a preprogrammed instinct. A person can alternate between same sex and opposite sex unions. In short, our sexual preferences may be more liquid than some would care to admit. As our own society continues to promote same sex unions, I’ve no doubt that we will see more people opting for them.") "'Pastor' Fred Phelps Aids The Homosexual Agenda" ("Phelps' latest antics should be condemned by all Christians. He provides homosexuals with an alleged "Christian" spokesman who is used to attack all Christians as hate-filled bigots. If Phelps did not exist, homosexuals would have to invent him. His efforts only aid the homosexual movement.") "HOMOSEXUALITY - 15 QUESTIONS" (examples: 1. WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY? 5. CAN ONE'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION BE CHANGED? 14. IS HOMOSEXUALITY AGAINST RELIGION?) "Homosexual Myths" by Peter and Paul Ministries (examples: Myth #2: People Are Born Homosexual, Myth #3: Homosexuals Cannot Change, Myth #9: Homosexuality Is Okay Because Many Homosexuals Claim To Be Happy, Myth #10: Homosexuals Should Be Allowed To Marry Because They Love Each Other, Myth #14: 30% of Homosexual Teens Commit Suicide) "Puberty 101: Gay and Lesbian Teens" |