Let's clarify one point before the beginning of this discussion.  All persons have within themselves the genetic possibility of being homosexual.  This is the reason that homosexuality has not been long bred out of the human race.  The difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that the former group has made a conscious choice to be attracted to members of the same gender; equally, the latter group has made a conscious choice to be attracted to members of the opposite gender.  Therefore, no one is "born gay" or "born straight"; we each of us make that choice in our own due time, and live with the consequences of that decision from that time forward.

As persons born in America, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as all other United States citizens, with one exception.  They can vote, hold any job for which they are qualified, run for office, party with their friends, and do everything that a heterosexual would do.  That exception, however, has become a bone of contention in recent years, and has been on state ballots across the nation within the last three election cycles (2002, 2004, and 2006).  The exception is that homosexuals cannot enter into a recognized state of matrimony in nearly every state in the Union, and this is the one area that has become the focus of "gay rights".

Sodomy laws came under attack several years ago in the beginning of the "gay rights" movement, and were for the most part struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as being unConstitutional, the most notable case being the Texas sodomy law.  As such, this area is now off the table.  Gay marriage, on the other hand, has been put on state ballots in numerous states, and to my knowledge, only ONE state has voted to allow it, that one being Massachusetts.  The other states, by wide majorities (60% or higher in nearly all cases, and over 70% in a few), declined the option, and wrote into the state constitutions that "marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman".  This is as it should be.

The traditional concept of marriage stands for two things.  One is procreation and the continuation of the human race.  Obviously same-gender unions cannot do this without the outside help of science or via adoption, and thus those unions do not qualify under this precept.  The second item is the long-term stability of the family.  While it is certainly arguable that the traditional family unit (mother, father, children) is not as common as once it was, it is certainly still much more prevalent than father-father or mother-mother units, more stable than such outre concepts, and much more conducive to the rearing of well-adjusted, "normal" children.  Both the mother and the father are necessary to the emotional well-being of the child, and replacing one or the other with a same-gender facsimile does not entail equal nurturing for the child.  Therefore, same-gender unions fall short on the second premise as well, and this is the reason why most states voted down gay marriage.

The argument for recognized unions between members of the same sex does have some valid points.  The ability to will property to one or the other of the partnership, and visitation rights in hospitals and funeral arrangements, are but two of several legitimate reasons why same-gender unions should be recognized.  My proposal, therefore, is that for those states which have declared marriage as "a legal union between a man and a woman" should also have "civil unions", in which two people are recognized by a judge as having legal standing for each other in terms of wills, visitations, funeral arrangements, joint contracts, etc.  This satisfies the legal propriety and avoids using the term "marriage" in defiance of the laws of many states.

(This concludes the four basic points on which a conservative is defined against a liberal.  Conservatives in the main are for the death penalty, against gun control, against abortion, and against gay marriage; liberals in the main take the opposing views.  Further entries in this blog will touch on any area that piques my interest, whether political or not, but these four topics were covered first due to their importance in the continuing political debate of this country---litmus tests, if you will.)