Marriage Under Attack, Must Be Defended
- 3 June 2006 by Author 0 Comments
Marriage Under Attack, Must Be Defended
By Richard Larsen
Printed Idaho State Journal- Sunday, June 3, 2006
This month, the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. The wording of the MPA seems innocuous enough: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
However, to some people, a distinct minority both nationally and in Idaho, the MPA is anything but harmless. They contend that the Amendment is homophobic, anti-homosexual, biased, and discriminatory and that marriage is a right that should be available to any consenting adults, regardless of sexual preference.
This amendment, rather than stating any position against homosexuals, is strictly a proactive legal and binding reaffirmation of what constitutes a marriage. Since families and marriage are under assault culturally and legally with revisionist jurists, this amendment will validate the historical definition of marriage to prevent problems across state lines.
To the rest of us, marriage is a state recognized union that is between a man and a woman based on natural biological laws, and a moral tenet. This doctrine is founded in Judeo-Christian tradition and our recognition of the historicity of the first marriage: Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve, else the rest of us would not even be here to debate the issue.
So, is marriage a right? To an extent, perhaps so. Let’s compare it to other rights. To exercise the right to drive, we must be old enough, and qualify by taking a test. To bear arms, I must qualify to purchase a firearm. To vote, I have to qualify by being old enough and have established residency. In most cases, state recognized rights have to be qualified for.
By definition, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” Therefore, in order to enjoy the “right” of marriage, I have to qualify. And two people of the same sex don’t qualify.
For most of us, marriage is more than a secular convention; it is sacred. Homosexuals assuming that same ordinance, are hijacking it, much like the term “gay” is a hijack of an otherwise happy, merry adjective imbued with affirmative etymological overtones. I wish like crazy my Chevy Tahoe was a Hummer. But regardless of how much I call it a Hummer, it will never be one. Just calling it one does not make it so.
Homosexuals define themselves by their sexual preference. Most of us define ourselves by what we do that is positive either as a father, a husband, or a homemaker. We sometimes define ourselves by our vocations or avocations in life: I’m a broker, banker, attorney, hair dresser, or a truck driver. These are positive assertions of what we do to contribute to our society. We don’t define ourselves as “heterosexuals.” That may be a component of our self-description, but it is not the primary one.
But a homosexual defines him or her self by their sexual orientation. To do so is a prurient denigration of the human soul to not much more than a sexual entity. Hardly true to our human nature which compels us to rise to our highest potential, not lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator.
The long-term impact of redefining is frightening. In some Scandinavian countries where gay marriage and civil unions have been legal for years, between 60% and 80% of all children are now born to parents who are not married to each other. This devaluation of marriage creates instability and insecurity for children, families, and society.
Also illustrative, is the fact that in March, 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that it was getting out of the adoption business, because they couldn’t place children in strictly traditional families because it conflicted with the state anti-discrimination laws in conjunction with the new (2004) homosexual marriage statute. This is just a glimpse of things to come.
An expert in civil liberties, Anthony Picarello says that the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from homosexual “marriage” will be “severe and pervasive.” He says, “because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create conflict at every point around the perimeter of our society.”
We can be respectful and tolerant of those with a different sexual orientation, much like we are of those with different opinions. But to do so shouldn’t mandate the redefinition of the most fundamental and sacred union in our society. We heterosexuals have not brought on this fight. The often militant agenda of the homosexual lobby has forced us into a defensive posture.
Some things in life are of sufficient importance to justify fighting for: freedom, liberty, justice, and families. When the building blocks of society can be altered by a judges order contrary to the will of the people, an amendment like the MPA is more than warranted: it’s demanded!
Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at email@example.com.