“I Do” or “Please Don’t”: Hawaii’s Same Sex Marriages”I Do” or “Please Don’t”: Hawaii’s Same Sex MarriagesWith the recent decision by the Hawaii courts regarding the legalizationof marriage between same-sex couples, a political debate across the UnitedStates has begun.
Many people believe that this is a monstrous step tolegalizing same-sex unions country wide, especially since legal traditionrecognizes marriages performed in other states as binding within every otherstate, but also because Hawaii is known for it’s liberal, ground-breaking firststeps that the other states often follow the model of. If the states have anywill, however, they will not fold to the pressure put on them by this state andthe gay rights groups, they will continue to not recognize a man and man or awoman and woman as a man and wife. What is marriage anyway? Isn’t it the union of two people who love eachother to prove their commitments to one another for the future? Yes, but thereis more. Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage as:”a) the state of being joined together as husband and wife, b)the state of joining a man to a woman as her husband or a woman to a man ashis wife. ” Legally, however, marriage is more than just a statement of love. Marriage comes with economic and legal benefits that one cannot receive alone.
For example, joint parental custody, insurance and health benefits, the abilityto file joint tax returns, alimony and child support, and inheritance ofproperty and visitation of a partner or a child in the hospital. In fact, theHawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation itself concluded that denial of marriagelicenses to same-sex couples deprived applicants of these legal and economicbenefits. So, are homosexuals fighting for the right of marriage to state theirlove as the gay rights groups suggest or are they pushing for the right ofmarriage because of the many benefits that come with it? The answer is obvious they are fighting for the benefits that come along with marriage. If they werefighting for love, then where would we stop these “feelings?” If homosexualswere allowed to marry because they love each other and they consent, thencouldn’t a pedophile marry a younger child as long as both parties fullyconsented? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other,then couldn’t one man marry many wives because he loved each one and they eachloved him? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other,then couldn’t a son and his mother, or even a brother and a brother, marrybecause they love each other? As one member of the Episcopal Laity Group said,”a line must be drawn and it must never be crossed.
Marriage is for a man and awoman, and that’s the way marriage will always be. “The gay rights’ activists claim that this denial of love, in the form ofmarriage, is a form of discrimination. These gay rights’ activists claim thatthis denial of love is similar to when slavery was being defended, women’svoting rights were being denied, or even more specifically and more related, theanti-miscegenation laws of a few decades back. This is clearly an attempt attugging at the nation’s heart chords by comparing the struggle for same-sexunions to several notable, if not the most notable, equality struggles in thehistory of the United States. The comparison to the defense of slavery or thedenial of women’s voting rights by gay right’s groups is simply unfounded.
Homosexuality has never been considered morally “good,” and it is a tremendousjump from saying that black-skinned people should work for white-skinned peoplejust because of skin color or women can’t vote just because of sex to sayingthat homosexuals can’t marry just because of their sexual habits. There is aclear distinction. First of all, Colin Powell once noted that skin color (andgender in this case) and sexual behavior are completely different andincomparable. Skin color and gender are born into, and they have absolutely noeffect on conduct or character, sexual behavior on the other hand, haseverything to do with character, morality, and society’s basic rules of conduct. If anything, homosexuality is comparable to smokers, compulsive gamblers,pornography fanatics, sex addicts, and pedophiles because these are all peoplewhose traits (whether inborn or not) directly effect society. This alsodirectly relates to interracial marriages because a person’s skin color does notproduce a certain effect on conduct or character.
If polled at the time of therespective movement (anti-slavery, women’s rights, or interracial marriages), amajority of the United States population would have supported the movements(population includes those who are directly involved), but in the United Statestoday, over 2/3rds of the population are against same-sex marriage (according tonational polls run by Newsweek and CNN). On top of that, along with marriagegoes the assumption of sexual activity. The sexual activity of one homosexualwith another (sodomy) is illegal in many states and allowing gays to marry wouldbe turning a head to this illegal act. Whether sodomy is illegal or not, it is still practiced, claim the gayright’s activists.
While this is concedable, they also say that monogamousrelationships are safer in the homosexual community than polygamousrelationships. This is one of those statements that sounds good, because it istrue in the heterosexual community, but the facts prove otherwise, because thehomosexual community is not the heterosexual community. The general feelingamong gay right’s activists is that with the threat of AIDS and other diseasesamong promiscuous, homosexual men, it is a “societal good” to encouragehomosexual monogamy. However, in cities where homosexual monogamy is alreadybeing encouraged, AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases are actuallysoaring! (Survey from the Centers of Disease Control report by Associated Press,”HIV Found in 7 Percent Gay Young Men: Education Fails to halt Spread,” TheWashington Times, February 11, 1996, p A-3; Michael Warner, “Why Gay Men AreHaving Risky Sex,” Village Voice, New York, January 31, 1995, Vol.
XL. , No. 5)AIDS is most likely transmitted in unsafe sex acts, and an English studyrecently published that the most unsafe sex acts occur in homosexual steadyrelationships. Men in steady relationships practiced more anal intercourse andoral-anal intercourse than those without a steady partner. Said one formerhomosexual, William Aaron, “in the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. .
. the gay man must be constantly on the lookout for new partners . . .
the mosthomophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two tohave affairs on the side . . . ” (OUT Magazine) So, the myth that homosexualmarriage will decrease the number of gay AIDS patients because of lesspromiscuity is completely unfounded. The myth by these gay right’s activistsshow how common sense in the heterosexual community must not be applied ascommon sense in the homosexual community, and vice versa, because they are twodifferent communities.
In fact, the gay right’s activists use of this mythsimply shows how they want to play on the heterosexual community’s fear of AIDSin order to gain something advantageous for themselves. The fear of AIDS, discrimination, and denial of love are all tacticsused by those in support of same-sex unions, but clearly all of them areineffective arguments when examined. In it painfully obvious that the onlyadvantage to same-sex unions for homosexuals is the legal and economic benefits,but it is at this point that the homosexuals are receiving favoritism ratherthan equality. When two people are allowed to marry just because of legal andeconomic reasons, regardless of whether or not they are marrying in thetraditional sense, it is clearing being discriminatory against those in theheterosexual community who are marrying for love.
It is giving gays anadvantage rather than equality. Homosexual unions should not be allowed in theUnited States, and as a representative of St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Churchsaid, “marriage is a privilege not a right. “INTERVIEWEESEpiscopal Laity Group, 1-800-307-7609 St.
Anthanasius Roman Catholic Church,703-759-4555