Thursday, August 5, 2010

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

“Today, a single federal judge has negated the will of the people of California. The central premise of the court’s ruling is that it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The court holds that the ubiquitous definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a historical curiosity that serves no purpose whatsoever, but rather is based solely on anti-gay biases. Indeed, the court went so far as to brand as “irrational” all supporters of traditional marriage, which is the vast majority of all people, in America and throughout the world." -by

I have something to say about the matter. Just weeks ago I wrote a paper concerning this very subject out of my own curiosity. I decided that, although I have many religious reasons why I am opposed to gay marriage, I thought it would be best to show my perspective without involving religious reasons whatsoever (ie:
there are a ton of reasons why in the bible, the Prophet of the Lord told us to and he can see things we can't.. etc, etc.). Although I believe these are valid reasons, those who do not agree with us don't have the same beliefs. So I decided to analyze the situation from a strictly factual angle. Feel free to read my two cents if you wish, but commenting is closed due to the highly controversial nature of this subject. However, feel free to email me on the matter if you feel so inclined. Or give me a high five on facebook, because I know you're on both right now. (;

Over the last few years, gay marriage has become a hot topic of debate in the United States. It has recently been very controversial in states such as Hawaii and California due to ballots containing propositions either defending marriage as it is or containing amendments hoping to legalize it for homosexuals. The concern with gay marriage, for those in favor of it, is that it is a civil right that should be granted to all people. References to Women’s rights and abolishment of slavery are often used in defending this case. Those opposed to it argue that it infringes upon the definition of what marriage truly is. Religious freedoms and concerns with teaching children acceptance of such an act are generally referenced when defending this position. However, the true predicament lies in analyzing the United States’ Constitution. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Should homosexuals then be entitled to pursue happiness through marriage? Furthermore, would gay marriage infringe upon the lives and pursuit of happiness of others? Yes is the appropriate answer to both of these questions. Although I believe that every individual is entitled to make their own decisions, I also believe that it should not be an option when it jeopardizes other individuals’ freedoms. This paper will explore the reasons why gay marriage imposes on the freedoms and pursuit of happiness of others.

First, where does the word and act of marriage originate from? Many cultures have their own definitions and explanations as to of why marriage should exist. One of the earliest recorded definitions outside of religious texts comes from Mesopotamia’s Hammurabi’s Code. It is a well preserved ancient Babylonian text that dates back to 1790 BC. The code consists of 282 laws that were written by Hammurabi “to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land” (King 1). Even in the earliest recorded code, the law of marriage was declared by a religious individual who wrote the laws with direction by God. As many other religions believe, God established the bond of matrimony when the very first individuals were placed on this Earth. This therefore proves that marriage is not an act originated by the United States Constitution, but rather, in many lifetimes previous, and all referenced by individuals claiming that God was their source of direction. Furthermore, this shows us that religion in fact plays a fundamental role in marriage’s very existence. Therefore, religious denominations have a right to be concerned when their belief of marriage is being altered, and are justified in feeling their religious opinions are being disrespected.

Where the definition of marriage is concerned, many anthropologists have written various definitions, all with a common identity. In the book The History of Human Marriage by Edvard Westermarck, marriage is defined as “a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring” (71). In the anthropological handbook Notes & Queries of Anthropology, the definition is written as “a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners” (Garson 110). These various definitions include the commonality that marriage is in fact defined as being between a man and a woman.

Ultimately, without heterosexual couples, society would not exist. Homosexual marriage advocates defend their stance by proclaiming that homosexuals contribute to society the same as anyone else. However; without the help of fertility medical facilities, sperm banks, and the births of adoptable children, homosexual couples are unable to contribute to society for more than their lifetime. Societies are not built by single generations, but by the birth of children over many generations. Simple biology proves that without the sperm of a man and egg of a woman, human life would not exist. Should this lack of procreation then be lawfully accepted as a valuable entity of our society?

If homosexual marriage were to be legalized, childhood educational curriculum would be altered to include information of the “different” types of families. This is understandable; however, if children are to be informed, they should also be informed of the risks involved with such a lifestyle. Even though the production and consumption of tobacco products is legal, the government requires certain information to be available to the consumers. The serious health risks should be a requirement of consent where gay marriage is concerned. Various studies show that the health risks involved with homosexual lifestyle include physical damage, more than 6 types of cancer, more than 12 common STD’s, HIV/AID’s, and more (ElHage 4). If children are to be taught that gay marriage is a normal part of society, they should also be informed of the severe health risks involved which are comparable to the risks of second hand smoke. It is safe to say that the lives of more Americans would be at risk, and therefore gay marriage imposes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others.

Gay Marriage imposes upon families’ rights for parents to teach their children what they believe are correct principles. It endangers more lives by spreading more diseases and health risks amongst the community. Gay marriage would allow homosexuals to redefine the original definitions of marriage, which is religious in origin, and would impose on the religious rights of others. Homosexuals are unable to contribute their own biological children to this planet, and thus would not contribute to the building of future societies.

Thanks for listening to a ranting woman.