The Thought Of Someone Marrying Their Animal Makes Me Ill

Some days I wish the issue of gay marriage would just disappear. But the reality is that it will not, especially as more and more states make it legal. It's in the news this time thanks to one young lady who believed in telling the nation what she felt was right. Unfortunately, though as brave and amazing as she was, it was not appreciated by all.

I can understand how someone would feel that marriage should not be dictated by the government and that it does seem more appropriate for marriage to be dictated by religion. But the issue is not as simple as that and America was not set up in such a fashion that allows marriage to remain purely a religious issue.

First I would like to simply state that I do not believe in marriage between anyone or anything except for between a man and a woman. I do not believe God sanctions any other form of marriage. Thus, I do not support gay marriage by principle.

Now that that is out of the way lets move on to the more complicated political issue.

Marriage is the legal status or condition that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life or until the legal termination of the relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has given the right to regulate marriage by prescribing who can marry and in what manner the marriage can be dissolved to the states. An annulment or divorce is granted on terms put forth by the state. States have the power to put forth conditions for marriage, to regulate marriage for the mentally ill, and to put age limits on marriage. State may also regulate the right to marriage between blood relatives. The States do not have all the power to regulate marriage though. In 1878 the Supreme Court ruled that polygamous marriages are illegal. In Reynolds V. United States, the court concluded that a State may outlaw Polygamy for everyone, regardless of whether it is a religious duty. The requirement that marriage is between a man and a woman was held to be essential.

From this we learn that state can regulate who marries. If they are allowed to regulate so much with marriage, why is it not okay that they regulate gender? Also note that marriage is not a FREEDOM. It is a right. We are not taking anything away from the gays because we are not allowing them to married. They do not have the right yet and since its not a freedom we are not taken a freedom away from them. I think because it seems to easy to get married we take for granted this right. We assume we have the right and freedom to marry how what and where we want. But we don't. The right has to be given to us.

In 1993, the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr V. Lewin revived the possibility of homosexual marriage. The court held that the state restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex based classification, which is subject to constitutional scrutiny when challenged on equal protection grounds. Though they were not recognizing a constitutional right they did indicate that the states would have a hard time providing that gay and lesbian couples were not being denied equal protection under the laws. The Circuit Court than found that the state had not met its burden and it enjoined the state from denying marriage applications based on the sex of the applicants. The decision was stayed pending an appeal. Because of this a number of states prepared legislation to ban same sex marriage and to prohibit recognition of such marriages performed in other states. However, this decision was stayed pending another appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This act also prohibited the federal government from treating the same sex relationships as marriage even if it was recognized by the states (interesting side note liberals: it was signed into law by President Clinton).

In 2008, Proposition 8 in California continually made headline news. For any who happened to have their head in a hole or were to busy fighting a socialist from taking over the country, Prop 8 was a statewide ballot concerning the issue of same sex marriage. Proposition 8 added a new amendment to the CA Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Before this time, the Supreme Court has affirmed that same sex marriage was a constitutionally protected right. While that phrase is not official a part of the Constitution, 3 lawsuits have been filed and are being heard which have the potential to change this. I can not remember any issue in recent elections that has caused such a fuss nationwide. Millions from both sides were poured into this issue. In the end 52.5 % of those that voted, voted Yes to Prop 8.

What made this issue hit so close to home was 2 things. First my gay friend decided I could not be his friend because I supported Prop 8. Apparently its a-okay to be gay but not a-okay to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Secondly, my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints came out in support of the proposition. This was significant to me because it does not often voice its support for or against an issue. Also, the backlash against my church was not pretty, in fact in some ways I found it horrific. Especially because it was not our church's support that got the amendment passed. It may have helped but it was not what did it. One of the key events in the passage of Prop 8 was the increased turnout of black voters. Voters who came out to vote for their beloved President Obama. 70% of them voted in support of Prop 8. Woops President Obama! Asians and Latinos also voted yes for Prop 8 at a higher percentage than whites, but no percentage was as high as the black vote. Because of the strong Christian background in many black families, they voted heavily in support of Prop 8.

As of now, 4 states have or are on their way to allowing gay marriages, many have passed amendments blocking gay marriage, and some allow civil unions. Civil unions is a legal union similar to marriage. While it is not recognized as a marriage per say it allows the couple to receive all the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of a married couple. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, thus other states are not forced to recognize them either. Prop 8 would not have outlawed civil unions, or as they are known in CA, Domestic Partnerships.

Would it not seem ideal if religion had all the say in marriage if marriage suppose to be sanctified of God? Why has it become political issue?

For some the issue of same sex marriage is as simple as their religious beliefs. They do not believe in it, and feel that it could be destructive to society, so they will not support it. It is always important to stand up for ones beliefs so I strongly support this. I would not expect someone to vote in support of legalizing drugs if they felt that drugs were bad for individuals and for society. I support this reason for not voting for Prop 8 and it played a large role in why I supported Prop 8. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints explained their position regarding this very well and I see no need to explain it further as I fully support all that is said in this document.

But because of my belief in freedom, individual choice (within certain bounds and as long as there are no harmful effects to anyone else due to your actions), and small government, there is more to the issue than simply that I do not believe in same sex marriage.

First, it could, and already has taken away the right for adoption agencies to not place children in homes run by a gay couple. Some adoption agencies, especially those run by religious organizations feel that it is in the kids best interest to have a mother and a father. If gay marriage became legal adoption agencies could be forced to place children with same-sex couples or shut down completely. This has already happened in Massachusetts and California. In 2004 same-sex couples were given the right to marry. In 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to abandon its adoption work because of religious objections to the new stat law requiring that same-sex couples be allowed to adopt. In 2004, after being sued by a California couple, an Arizona Internet based adoption agency had to stop posting profiles of Californians because they would not adopt to same sex couples in California.

The next issue if the tax exemption status of Churches. Would they be able to keep that status if they publicly oppose same-sex marriages or refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings? In 2007, a church refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony in its facility. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights revoked the church's property tax exemption although New Jersey Law exempts from property tax all buildings used in the work of associations organized expressly for religious purposes. In 1999, a San Fransisco Supervisor sought to initiate legal action to revoke the Mormon Church's tax exempt status because the church had encouraged its members to support a 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

In California 98% of California school districts provide comprehensive sexual health education. The school districts must teach respect for marriage and committed relationships and that the instruction should be appropriate for pupils of all sexual orientations and no bias can be showed towards or against any person based on specific categories. Also, if Prop 8 had or still does fail, parents would not have the right to excuse their children from instruction. Massachusetts parents recently sued because their young children were going to be taught about same-sex marriage and they were not only not going to be notified but they were not going to be given the opportunity to excuse their children despite the statue given them that right. Some of the biggest sponsors for No on Prop 8 had filed briefs urging the court to reject the parents claims and to deny their rights. The parents lost and the same organizations moved onto CA telling parents their children will not be taught about same sex marriage in schools. If Prop 8 is said to be unconstitutional, California schools would be required to teach same-sex marriage on the same footing as traditional marriage would effectively take even more rights away from the parents, than the government has already taken away.

Now let me state that some say that these potential effects will not occur. Some pro gay marriage organizations state that forcing agencies to adopt to same-sex couples will not be the outcome. They say that what happened in Massachusetts was because of anti discriminatory laws and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not be effected due to their private status. Some claim that the tax exemption status would not be changed. And they have promised parents that their kids would not be forced to be taught about same-sex marriage in school. But are they saying that because they want votes or because its true? Because based on history, I for one to not believe them. Legal scholars can't even agree whether tax exemption policies would be effected. If they can't decide, should the churches just forget about that issue? Legalizing gay marriage could not only effectively open up the way for the moral decapitation of society but would churches even continue to have rights? Those for same-sex marriage say that they just want the right to marry. That's it. But no one is every satisfied once they get what they have been wanting. They always want something else. They always feel that they deserve more; that their rights are still being infringed. Is it okay to give people more rights by taking the rights of others away?

There are so many issues that can be discussed. So many potential consequences and outcomes but I have written enough for now. My head is spinning already. Let me just state a few more opinions though before I close. I love all my gay friends(even if they hate me) and relatives and I want the best for them. But I do not see how being able to get the legal title of being Married is going to do that for them and thus I do not feel that I am harming them in any way. I also do not feel that we need to change the structure of society to fit into every persons choice and lifestyle. If you feel like the title of Marriage will complete you then something else in your life is probably lacking.

What I do know is that society is getting destroyed. That we need to stop focusing so much on who has the right to get married and start focusing more on how to fix this Institution in America. How to get America to not forsake marriage and how to keep families together. Why should we be allowing others to take part in an Institution and a right that we can not even completely handle?

Also I hate comparing the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. They are not nor will they ever be the same thing. But perhaps the gays should take note of how peaceful protests and peaceful actions work better than violence and loud disruptive protesting. And perhaps they should stop calling us hate mongers until they stop hating those who do not believe the way they do.

And for Goodness Sakes America get off this girls back. She only spoke up for what she believes is right. Are we now forcing everyone to support the gay lifestyle or is it that we want everyone to lie so that gays think we are all in support of them? If anything she should have won the crown because it showed her integrity and honesty.