Same Sex Marriage Conclusion

allaboutlove

Same Sex Marriage Conclusion - Conclusion from the Author
Perhaps you believe that there are good arguments for same-sex marriage. I honestly have not seen any, but I could be missing something. David Blankenhorn lists what he thinks are some good pro-same-sex marriage arguments in his book. Blankenhorn, a liberal democrat who is generally pro-gay, believes that those arguments are not nearly as weighty as those against same-sex marriage.

In an interview with USA Today, Blankenhorn explains, “I’m not condemning homosexuality. I’m not condemning committed gay relationships. [But] the best institutional friend that children have is marriage, and if grown-ups make a mess of it, the children are going to suffer.”83 Indeed, he realizes that the welfare of children is more important than validating the sexual desires of some adults.

By opposing same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn is not selling out his gay friends. I have argued that he is actually helping them. Even if he’s not helping them—even if gay behavior were just as healthy as straight behavior—we would still be right in opposing same-sex marriage in order to protect children and the country.

In some public policy debates there are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. The lower value must give way to the higher. Even if you think there are some good reasons to support same-sex marriage, and even if you think some of my arguments are flawed, it is still perfectly reasonable to support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to achieve the greater good for children and the country.

Some will say, “But marriage is an issue for the states. Why are you trying to get the federal government involved?” It is true that marriage law has long been an issue for the states. And many states have passed and should continue to pass bans on same-sex marriage. However, lawsuits from homosexual activists continually threaten your ability to decide the issue at the ballot box. Because of these lawsuits, a few unelected justices from the Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts have made same-sex marriage a federal issue by making up rights that aren’t in either state constitution. Either of those two activist rulings have the potential to become the law of every other state through the “full faith and credit clause” of the United States Constitution.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other State.” In other words, if one state recognizes same-sex marriage, a suit in federal court may force other states to recognize those marriages as well, even if the people in those other states have voted to ban same-sex marriage in their own state constitutions. In effect, the U.S. Constitution would overrule all the state constitutions. This is how just a few unelected state judges can impose their own views on the entire country and why an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary.

Think of that—a few unelected justices in one state can, in effect, change the laws of the entire country. Talk about discrimination—that’s discrimination against the other three hundred million people in this country who are entitled to govern themselves! When any court oversteps its bounds and usurps the will of the people by legislating from the bench, the only sure remedy is to ignore the court and impeach the justices. Since most politicians are too scared to do that, our next best bet is an amendment to the United States Constitution. Of course, judges could ignore that new part of the Constitution too, as they have ignored so many old parts. But at least the constitutional amendment process would involve the American people making it more difficult for any rogue court to get away with ignoring their will so blatantly.

It is revealing to note that homosexuals rely on the courts to get them the social approval they crave because they know that they cannot win such approval by a fair vote of the people. Until the Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts overstepped their authority, “we the people” have decided which sexual relationships are worthy of legal recognition and which are not. And “we the people” have done so not on arbitrary grounds, but in light of the natural design and compatibility of a man and a woman and all of the benefits that come from their union. In other words, we legally recognize and confer benefits on man-woman unions because only natural marriage benefits our society at large. Americans, like every civilized people before us, have put marriage alone in a privileged class because marriage alone is supremely beneficial.

It has been said that before you move a fence, you should pause long enough to see why it was placed there in the first place. Activist courts don’t pause. They do whatever they want and whatever is politically correct at the time. Our legislative process was designed to be slow and deliberative to reduce the likelihood of someone moving an important fence in the middle of the night. That’s why we need to urge the legislature to take back control. When we pause long enough to set aside emotion and look at the facts, we can see that unless we impeach judges, a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect our national immune system.

Same Sex Marriage - Is it Right?
Homosexual activists like to paint conservatives like myself as haters who condemn gays. But from my religious perspective, I am just as condemned as anyone else. I believe that everyone does wrong, including me, and that I am called to hate everything harmful and wrong in someone’s life while unconditionally loving that person as a person. In fact, the way to love a person is to hate what is destroying them. But we are not talking about sin and salvation here; we are talking about public policy. As with all public policy debates, the debate over same-sex marriage is about the standard of behavior that we ought to endorse for the good of the nation. In other words, it’s not about whether you like or dislike homosexuals, or whether you consider their behavior sinful or not; it’s about what would—to employ the logic of our Constitution—“promote the general welfare” of the nation as a whole. As we have seen, the best way to do that is to promote natural marriage and prohibit any endorsement of same-sex relationships.

Unless we do something to stop the same-sex marriage train, we will soon be endorsing homosexuality and degrading natural marriage in the process. That’s because homosexual activists are just that—active. They are not taking a “live-and-let-live” approach with society. They want to impose their radical views on the entire country, and their all-out assault will hurt our children, our health, and our prosperity.

Some may say, “Well, same-sex marriage is legal now in Massachusetts, and the sky hasn’t fallen there.” That is because the cultural damage doesn’t arrive overnight. It sometimes takes years for legal changes to affect the culture. But make no mistake—that damage will come. In the United States, we are paying now for the liberalization of divorce laws that occurred about forty years ago. In some of the aforementioned countries overseas, they are paying now for their affirmation of samesex marriage a decade or so ago.

How about you? Will you enable the destruction of society by succumbing to political correctness—by saying and doing nothing? Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” Indeed, 3 percent with passion will rule the 97 percent who are apathetic and choose to do nothing. Will you do nothing or will you stand up and be counted? In case you are tempted to do nothing, I urge you to consider the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’
Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it political?’
Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’
But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”

As we have seen, the evidence shows it is right to support natural marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. Do you have the courage to do so? For the sake of your country and your children and grandchildren, you must.

Learn More!

Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.

83 Sharon Jayson, “Blankenhorn: A Family Guy with a Cause,” USA Today, March 14, 2007. Posted online at http://www.americanvalues.org/html/FUMA.htm.


Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others. What is this?