The Attack On Marriage

Here in Arizona, we are going to be voting on a marriage protection amendment on the November Ballot. This initiative will amend the Arizona State Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Very simply stated. There is no agenda hidden in page after page of legal mumbo jumbo. Yet, the alternative lifestyles community still feels threatened by it. People are calling this bill a referendum on the gay community, and nothing more than a fundraiser to fuel anti-gay sentiment in this State, according to some of the opposition leaders. My initial reaction to their assertion that the government should stay out of their private lives is this; if you had kept your private life private, we wouldn't need to be here. Secondly, this isn't the government, it's your fellow citizens who are darn tired of you pushing your values onto us using the courts of liberal judges.. We are merely fighting back in a legal forum where judges can't overrule us. Us, as in we the people, the majority.

Marriage has, from the beginning of time, been generally accepted as a man uniting with a woman. Until very recently, when someone announced a wedding, nobody had to wonder what the gender of their prospective partner was. The gay community has brought this to the forefront, and now, as things really aren't going their way, they attempt to turn the tables and blame government. Not many politicians are jumping to get involved in this battle. The GLBT community has dragged most of them into this. Even the presidential candidates are keeping a low profile on this issue.

Frankly, I really wonder why we are still having this debate at all. I mean, 26 other States have already passed their own version of this legislation, and most have carried 65% of the vote, or better. In Arizona, two years ago, there was a measure brought before the people, which had far reaching implications, and it was defeated by a fairly narrow margin. That legislation would have prohibited government recognition of domestic partnerships and similar types of unions. In that scenario, there was reason to overthrow the proposed amendment because it would restrict the rights of alternative lifestyle couples with regards to their ability to qualify for insurance, through their employers, that would extend benefits to their partners. It would have restricted hospital visitation, and otherwise punish these people for their lifestyle.

The current proposed legislation, however, does not, in any way, affect these people on any of these issues. It merely seeks to affirm, via constitutional amendment, what the majority of the citizens of the State, as well as the Country as a whole, believe to be right and, thereby, prevent further attempts by the minority, abetted by the liberal judiciary branch of our government, to revisit the issue.

The argument, by the opposition, that the voters have already decided this issue is false. As stated previously, the initiative that was defeated in 2006, was far different and went too far for most people. I think the defeat of that proposition was justifiable. I do not believe that our Constitution supports bias, nor do I believe that our founding fathers were interested in what individuals choose to do in their own lives. I do believe that there was great interest in that group to set a standard of propriety for this nation and her people. To that end, we must endeavor to persist in the face of this pressure to have the majority acquiesce to a very small segment of our society.

If we are expected to bow to the will of the marginal group of people who are pushing this issue, where will it stop? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that this issue was decided in favor of the minority. What happens, then, if, say, ten or twenty years from now, another small group of people get together with the idea that they want to create their own little society, within the confines of the existing society, but that they want to be nudists. Sounds outlandish, right? But is it? Based on the 'civil rights' arguments put forth by the gay/lesbian faction, wouldn't we then have to recognize this new groups 'rights'? Ok, so maybe there is a better example than this one, but I think you get my point. Where, and when, can we finally draw the line?

I believe that the line needs to be drawn right here, and right now. The 'Defense of Marriage' amendment is not unfair to those who have a different view of marriage than the overwhelming majority of people in this country. The amendment, as written in the Arizona proposition, merely supports what most of us believe and prevents those who think otherwise from forcing their beliefs onto us. They can have their ceremonies that celebrate the commitment which they are making to each other. They can have the benefits which are afforded to traditional couples. They can be who they want to be, both, in public and in the privacy of their own home. All of these things give them equal recognition as far as the government is involved, and it prevents their little group from establishing, as normal, what most of us deem to be abnormal, for lack of a better word.

If you think that I am overstating the consequences of this issue being defeated, just read for yourself what is happening in Massachusetts now that gay marriage has been allowed: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Based on these, and other examples I have read about, passage of this proposition will help prevent the continued denigration of mainstream America. Our children will not be forced to listen to the propaganda of this faction in our public schools. The liberals, with their wild ideas that teachers, not parents, are more fit to teach our children what is normal, will be held at bay. These public school teachers are paid from public monies to teach that which the public wants their children to learn. Teachers are paid to instruct our children in math, language and scientific theories and principles. It is parents who are responsible for their child's understanding of their surroundings, of morals, of right and wrong.

Further, at this critical time, with our economic struggles still unresolved, and our State already in a budget crisis, the last thing we need is another group clamoring for funds to further their, now legitimized cause.

Finally, the liberal mindset is to teach that all individuals have the right to think for themselves, to decide, for themselves, what to believe. So why is it that liberals are so adamant that their ideas should be forced on every person, regardless of age, in this country? I think that the liberal crowd needs to take a good hard look at their own actions and reconcile the flaws in their own belief system, before they come banging down my door to tell me how to think and live.

That's reality from my backyard.