“I Do” or “Please Don’t”: Hawaii’s Same Sex Marriages
With the recent decision by the Hawaii courts regarding the legalization
of marriage between same-sex couples, a political debate across the United
States has begun. Many people believe that this is a monstrous step to
legalizing same-sex unions country wide, especially since legal tradition
recognizes marriages performed in other states as binding within every other
state, but also because Hawaii is known for it’s liberal, ground-breaking first
steps that the other states often follow the model of. If the states have any
will, however, they will not fold to the pressure put on them by this state and
the gay rights groups, they will continue to not recognize a man and man or a
woman and woman as a man and wife.
What is marriage anyway? Isn’t it the union of two people who love each
other to prove their commitments to one another for the future? Yes, but there
is more. Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage as:
“a) the state of being joined together as husband and wife, b)
the state of joining a man to a woman as her husband or a woman to a man as
his wife.” Legally, however, marriage is more than just a statement of love.
Marriage comes with economic and legal benefits that one cannot receive alone.
For example, joint parental custody, insurance and health benefits, the ability
to file joint tax returns, alimony and child support, and inheritance of
property and visitation of a partner or a child in the hospital.
In fact, the
Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation itself concluded that denial of marriage
licenses to same-sex couples deprived applicants of these legal and economic
benefits. So, are homosexuals fighting for the right of marriage to state their
love as the gay rights groups suggest or are they pushing for the right of
marriage because of the many benefits that come with it? The answer is obvious
they are fighting for the benefits that come along with marriage. If they were
fighting for love, then where would we stop these “feelings?” If homosexuals
were allowed to marry because they love each other and they consent, then
couldn’t a pedophile marry a younger child as long as both parties fully
consented?
If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other,
then couldn’t one man marry many wives because he loved each one and they each
loved him? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other,
then couldn’t a son and his mother, or even a brother and a brother, marry
because they love each other? As one member of the Episcopal Laity Group said,
“a line must be drawn and it must never be crossed. Marriage is for a man and a
woman, and that’s the way marriage will always be.”
The gay rights’ activists claim that this denial of love, in the form of
marriage, is a form of discrimination. These gay rights’ activists claim that
this denial of love is similar to when slavery was being defended, women’s
voting rights were being denied, or even more specifically and more related, the
anti-miscegenation laws of a few decades back. This is clearly an attempt at
tugging at the nation’s heart chords by comparing the struggle for same-sex
unions to several notable, if not the most notable, equality struggles in the
history of the United States.
The comparison to the defense of slavery or the
denial of women’s voting rights by gay right’s groups is simply unfounded.
Homosexuality has never been considered morally “good,” and it is a tremendous
jump from saying that black-skinned people should work for white-skinned people
just because of skin color or women can’t vote just because of sex to saying
that homosexuals can’t marry just because of their sexual habits. There is a
clear distinction. First of all, Colin Powell once noted that skin color (and
gender in this case) and sexual behavior are completely different and
incomparable.
Skin color and gender are born into, and they have absolutely no
effect on conduct or character, sexual behavior on the other hand, has
everything to do with character, morality, and society’s basic rules of conduct.
If anything, homosexuality is comparable to smokers, compulsive gamblers,
pornography fanatics, sex addicts, and pedophiles because these are all people
whose traits (whether inborn or not) directly effect society. This also
directly relates to interracial marriages because a person’s skin color does not
produce a certain effect on conduct or character. If polled at the time of the
respective movement (anti-slavery, women’s rights, or interracial marriages), a
majority of the United States population would have supported the movements
(population includes those who are directly involved), but in the United States
today, over 2/3rds of the population are against same-sex marriage (according to
national polls run by Newsweek and CNN). On top of that, along with marriage
goes the assumption of sexual activity. The sexual activity of one homosexual
with another (sodomy) is illegal in many states and allowing gays to marry would
be turning a head to this illegal act.
Whether sodomy is illegal or not, it is still practiced, claim the gay
right’s activists. While this is concedable, they also say that monogamous
relationships are safer in the homosexual community than polygamous
relationships. This is one of those statements that sounds good, because it is
true in the heterosexual community, but the facts prove otherwise, because the
homosexual community is not the heterosexual community. The general feeling
among gay right’s activists is that with the threat of AIDS and other diseases
among promiscuous, homosexual men, it is a “societal good” to encourage
homosexual monogamy.
However, in cities where homosexual monogamy is already
being encouraged, AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases are actually
soaring! (Survey from the Centers of Disease Control report by Associated Press,
“HIV Found in 7 Percent Gay Young Men: Education Fails to halt Spread,” The
Washington Times, February 11, 1996, p A-3; Michael Warner, “Why Gay Men Are
Having Risky Sex,” Village Voice, New York, January 31, 1995, Vol. XL., No. 5)
AIDS is most likely transmitted in unsafe sex acts, and an English study
recently published that the most unsafe sex acts occur in homosexual steady
relationships. Men in steady relationships practiced more anal intercourse and
oral-anal intercourse than those without a steady partner. Said one former
homosexual, William Aaron, “in the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. . .
the gay man must be constantly on the lookout for new partners . . . the most
homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to
have affairs on the side . . .” (OUT Magazine) So, the myth that homosexual
marriage will decrease the number of gay AIDS patients because of less
promiscuity is completely unfounded.
The myth by these gay right’s activists
show how common sense in the heterosexual community must not be applied as
common sense in the homosexual community, and vice versa, because they are two
different communities. In fact, the gay right’s activists use of this myth
simply shows how they want to play on the heterosexual community’s fear of AIDS
in order to gain something advantageous for themselves.
The fear of AIDS, discrimination, and denial of love are all tactics
used by those in support of same-sex unions, but clearly all of them are
ineffective arguments when examined. In it painfully obvious that the only
advantage to same-sex unions for homosexuals is the legal and economic benefits,
but it is at this point that the homosexuals are receiving favoritism rather
than equality. When two people are allowed to marry just because of legal and
economic reasons, regardless of whether or not they are marrying in the
traditional sense, it is clearing being discriminatory against those in the
heterosexual community who are marrying for love. It is giving gays an
advantage rather than equality. Homosexual unions should not be allowed in the
United States, and as a representative of St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Church
said, “marriage is a privilege not a right.”
INTERVIEWEES
Episcopal Laity Group, 1-800-307-7609 St. Anthanasius Roman Catholic Church,
703-759-4555
