I am writing you to make an argument against allowing homosexual marriages or civil unions in this country. First of all, you will not find in the letter arguments against homosexuals rooted in spiritual beliefs. Such religious arguments, even if accurate, are subjective and besides the point. At issue in this debate is not individual rights but the role government plays in shaping and protecting society as a whole. This is what is truly going to be impacted the most by this issue and what needs to be more clearly expressed in the public forum.
"This would be the first amendment to the constitution to take away rights instead of granting them." This argument against a constitutional amendment has been repeated often in the news lately and needs to be addressed. The problem with this statement is that it is absolutely untrue, a outright lie. The idea is that heterosexual people can marry whoever they want, so homosexual people should also be able to marry whoever they want. Sounds good right? Well it is not so easy as that. No one in the history of this country has ever been able to marry "whoever" they want, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious preference. I can not marry my sister, mother, father, brother, cousin, children, or myself. Not that I want to but the point is nobody in this country has the right to pick a spouse without government limitations. The issue is not, taking away rights from homosexuals, but whether we should grant a minority of people rights that the majority of people do not have. You can not make an exception for gays and lesbians without discriminating against every other type of couple that could possibly want to get married. If homosexuals can marry whoever they want then why not polygamists, college roommates, siblings, or single mothers who could save a lot of money on their taxes by marrying their children. How can it be constitutional to grant exclusive rights to just one minority group and discriminate against the rest?
The main point of my argument is thus: The main purpose of any government is to insure a safe and stable society, not insure individual rights. The marital status of a citizen affects how much they pay in taxes, in some cases the legality of their immigration, and in many other ways has a vast effect on society.This is why the government has to be the one who defines what a legal marriage is, and that definition has to be prioritized as; the good of society first, the rights of the individual second. Homosexual marriages or civil unions should not be allow not because it offends anyone's religion, but because they can not benefit society as a whole.
Allowing them would set the dangerous precedent that some groups of people should have more rights than others. The only way to avoid that kind of government sponsored discrimination, would be for the government to allow anyone in the country to marry anyone else they wanted. In such a scenario, how could society be regulated? That this whole issue is at debate (much less that nobody seems to be rationally discussing the consequences that might face society in this country) illustrates how far we have drifted from common sense in the main stream media. The liberals are right, it's not the governments business what we do in our bedrooms, but the government is obligated to define legal marriage as a fixed institution that can not be changed by any minority of people in this country, in the present or the future.
I would encourage you whether you agree with me or not to discuss this issue. We have had enough polarizing arguments about it, this country needs rational discussion now more than ever. The potential impacts of this issue, whether it goes either way, are to big to ignore or marginalize with extremist attitudes. Yelling convinces no one. Please consider this issue seriously and talk to others about it rationally. What we do as a country now is going to have a lasting and visible impact on our future, I hope that any changes we make are for the better.