As we have seen in the news this week, the Senate has been debating on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would define marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.  It is the argument of the Bush Administration, some Republicans and the Right-Wing Conservatives that by allowing homosexuals to marry would upset the sanctity of marriage. The reason behind this logic is that it would destroy the sacredness of marriage because marriage is critical to the well-being of families as families pass along values and shape character.  Marriage is also critical to the health of society.  Therefore by allowing gays to marry it would undermine the family structure.

Is it just me or does this reasoning make NO sense whatsoever?  First, let’s explore what constitutes a family structure and what constitutes a marriage.  A family unit can consist of several different things- a fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or more parents and their children; or two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another and reside usually in the same dwelling place; or all the members of a household under one roof.  Now, let’s look at the word marriage as it applies to us today- a legal contract binding two people together typically one man and one woman.  This being said, how can gays having the right to marry undermine the family structure?  As I see it based on the definition of both words, once two people enter into a marriage contract they automatically become a family unit as they are sharing goals and long-term commitments to one another.  So in this case, what is being damaged?  Nothing.

  In addition, the President talks about how families pass on values and shape character.  So, should we blame the family and hold them responsible when one of its’ members goes astray and becomes a murderer or a rapist or a thief or a drug dealer, etc?  If we’re going to follow the President’s logic, then they should be held accountable for acts their family member committed against society, since after all that particular family member learned their values and their character from the family unit.  Oh but that’s unreasonable you say.  It’s not anymore unreasonable than the President and others thinking that by allowing gays to marry is going to destroy family values.  There’s no basis for their argument just as there is no basis for us to hold the family unit responsible for crimes committed by one of the family members.  Yet, we still hear this explanation being used to deny homosexuals their unalienable rights.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for ‘gay marriage” nor am I against it.  My problem with this issue has to do with the fact that the President is trying to have discrimination written into the constitution.  Prejudice should not exist on the federal or state level.  It is not right nor is it fair to try and deny someone the right to share life with someone that they love no matter the gender of the person.  It is simply wrong no matter how they try to rationalize it.  We also have to remember the words of our Founding Fathers, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.   It seems to me that the Declaration of Independence holds true unless you’re a homosexual.  Then, one becomes an alien or better yet a second class citizen in their own country.  This is simply unbelievable.

Since President Bush and the Right-Wing Conservatives are so concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage and the family structure, I have an idea for them.  How about banning divorce?  The dissolving of a marriage can have devastating effects on children and rip families apart.  So in all fairness, marriage should be a lifetime commitment- one man and one woman for life.  Or would that divorce ban by the government be an intrusion into individual rights?  Wait a minute, isn’t that the same thing that they are trying to do to gays to keep them from being able to marry by intruding into their lives to keep them from legally being with the person they love and giving legal protection to that partnership?  You bet it’s an intrusion.  Unfortunately, there are a group of people who don’t see it that way or at least are not trying to see it because it doesn’t appeal to their agenda- selfish agenda if you ask me.

The argument about protecting the sanctity of marriage is such a joke with the divorce rate being as high as it is in this country.  Here’s a scenario, a couple spends thousands of dollars on their ceremony.  The bride comes out in a white gown- suppose to signify her purity but we all know she’s been sleeping with the groom long before the ceremony.  That’s another Oprah Show, but I digress.  They take their vows and may stay married for a year or two, and then they divorce, find new partners and do it all over again.  Is this the kind of “sanctity of marriage” the president and his cohorts are trying to protect?  Therefore, it is my conclusion that there is nothing sacred about getting married; again if it was so sacred, we wouldn’t have divorce.  We have to take it for what it is- a legal binding contract between two people.  That’s it, nothing more nothing less. 

My final thought is about the states putting this issue on the ballots to allow the voters to decide.  I disagree with this idea as it is NOT an issue that should be left up to popular vote.  Just imagine if the abolishment of slavery was left up to the voters.  Do you honestly think the people would have voted to ban slavery?  I don’t think so.  And what about other social issues that this nation has been faced with over the years, such as segregation, voting rights for women and minorities, interracial marriage, etc?  We would still be faced with these issues today if it were not for the government realizing that these practices of discrimination were wrong.  Why don’t they see that now?

That’s a simple answer.  The Right Wingers are full of contradictions. It appears to me that they live by the principle “love thy neighbor” unless they are gay, African-American, Hispanic, Jewish or Muslim, etc.  “Thou shall not kill” unless the people being killed are not like you.  These double standards are sad to say the least. 

It’s fine that the President and his cronies don’t agree with gays getting married, but is it right for them to try to impose their bias and prejudice on everyone else?  And to think we live in a country that is suppose to be free and the home of the brave.  Yeah right! 

In closing, these issues seem to stem from something deeper than just “gay marriage”.  It seems to me that there is confusion in this debate as it has become a religious issue as oppose to what it truly is- a social issue.  The bottom line is basic civil rights and liberties are given to one group and denied to another.  We cannot stand nor tolerate this taking place in this country.  So, I challenge everyone to think about this, what if the shoe was on the other foot?  What if you were told that you couldn’t marry or protect the person you chose to love?  I’m sure you wouldn’t like that, so stop trying to deny gays and lesbians the same rights.