Prop. 8 and the Rights of the People

The gay marriage issue keeps resurfacing. It seems that one side sees it as a "civil rights" issue, and the other sees is as a "freedom of religion" issue. I think they are all confused.

According to the Cornell University Law School, "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury." Further: "Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class." According to that definition, both sides of the argument could assert a violation of civil rights.

On the one hand, homosexuals say that they are being denied the security and legal benefits that legal marriage affords them. Certainly, such a legal situation could be obtained through a civil union, or some other such contract. Why do they insist that the definition of traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) be changed to include them? Why could they not be satisfied with a civil union? Could there be other reasons? Are they really out to destroy the traditional family unit, which has worked as the basis of successful societies for countless ages?

On the other hand, traditionalists assert that a change in the definition of marriage could endanger the very foundation of marriage and family. Perhaps so, but so could polygamy, which has been practiced in various times and cultures throughout the world and its history. (And, I see polygamy as the next great controversial religio-sexual civil right.) It all depends on how it is practiced. Any associations that involve mutual respect and dignity will breed same and create a society where respect and dignity are valued, but those that are based on lust and sex will only serve to feed the basest instincts of the human animal.

The real issue that traditionalists have with same-sex marriage is the assertion that any disagreement with them, even when based on religion, is a violation of civil rights. Many people have already been sued in courts of law for refusing products and services to same-sex couples because they believe their lifestyles to be immoral and objectionable. Likewise, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, uncounted numbers of blacks were refused products and services based on skin color, sometimes on religious bases. Similarly, forcing one to support, tolerate or condone a lifestyle that they find immoral and objectionable is also patently unfair.

So, to me, the question comes down to whose rights take precedence: those of the religious or those of the homosexual. While it is not an easy decision to make from an objective standpoint, it becomes easier when one considers that the Bill of Rights expressly protects freedom of religion, but does not even approach freedom of sexual preference. Apparently, this was something that the Founding Fathers sought to protect, whereas sexual preference was not even a consideration. Why? Because even the most nonreligious of our Founders could see that homosexuality is against the proper functioning of nature and does not contribute to the strength of the humanity or to the general well-being of society, whereas, religious observance, including mutual respect and the dignity of the family, strengthens individuals, and society as whole.

While I certainly see a need for civil unions that include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples, (and perhaps even polygamous unions) , I also support the sanctity of marriage and its limitation to exclusively heterosexual unions.