Sunday News

IN MY OPINION

People must rule on same-sex unions What's your opinion?

Although many emotional arguments have been made regarding same-sex "marriage," there are rational reasons that marriage should remain between one man and one woman as a matter of good public policy. Unfortunately, through irresponsible use of the term "homophobia," and through censorship of virtually all research that demonstrates marriage is good for women, society and especially children, the media and same-sex "marriage" advocates have made it all but impossible to engage in rational discussion.

Same-sex "marriage" isn't a matter of civil rights. Those who would redefine marriage are fighting at the courthouse, and not at the ballot box, because they know they can't win at the ballot. But if they can convince a single partisan judge that this is about civil rights they can take the power from the people and give it to the courts.

Because homosexuals are free to marry under the same conditions as heterosexuals -- meaning one must marry someone of the opposite sex -- the issue isn't one of denying them their "rights," but whether society should create an extra right for homosexuals, permitting men to marry men and women to wed women. Conceivably, Americans might someday redefine marriage, just as they might redefine education so everyone would have a "right" to attend Harvard. But that's for the people to decide, not courts. That's precisely why a constitutional amendment is crucial: Same-sex "marriage" advocates are always looking for a judge who will declare laws defining marriage unconstitutional. Only a constitutional amendment can prevent a judge from overriding the will of the people.

Homosexual "marriage" advocates will also tell you this is about obtaining the same privileges and protections that married couples enjoy. But state-sanctioned marriage wasn't meant to be a system of financial or social "benefits," or for giving "loving, consenting adults" a legal mechanism for demonstrating their "commitment" to the public. The state fosters heterosexual marriage to induce men to make long-term commitments to their wives and children, thereby benefiting society, because the leading cause of childhood poverty is fatherless families.

It's hard to believe that we even need to point this out, but only a union of one man and one woman is able to provide the benefit to society that led to recognition and encouragement of marriage by the state in the first place. Marriage is not, and should not become, a tool for the state to rectify some perceived civil or sociological inequity.

Another inevitable result of legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that the policy will gradually force people who believe homosexual sex is immoral to agree with a state-sponsored orthodoxy -- especially as promoted through public education -- or suffer serious erosion of First Amendment liberties. Not only have Canada and Scandinavia already moved in this direction by leveling financial penalties and prison on some who have publicly opposed homosexual behavior, it's already happening in the U.S.

Over the past 50 years we've conducted far too many social experiments on our children. No-fault divorce, according to "progressives," was to have liberated both children and adults, but has harmed children immeasurably. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" would further this disintegration.

Once we've ruled homosexual "marriage" to be a "civil right," and that "one man-one woman" is unconstitutionally "arbitrary," how can we tell polygamists they can't marry? They're "loving, consenting adults," right? Is the "arbitrary" line even to be drawn at two individuals? What about a brother and sister? Or, a brother and brother? If we cannot draw the line using common sense about what's best for children and society to define marriage, how can we draw any line at all?

Scott Taylor, of Millersville, is a stay-at-home dad.

Send "In My Opinion" submissions to Barbara Hough Roda, P.O. Box 1328, Lancaster, PA 17608-1328, or e-mail to broda@lnpnews.com. Columns should be no more than 600 words.