 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
Click here
|
Same-Sex “Marriage” 8/28/2000 Revised: August 25, 2000
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines "marriage" as the "institution whereby a man and a woman are joined in a special social and legal relationship." The American Heritage Dictionary echoes the definition, calling it "a union between a man and woman." In fact, throughout the ages, societies around the globe have accepted this fundamental definition—and they have considered the institution of marriage the basic building block of a stable culture. However, homosexual activists of the new millennium have created a counter-culture that seeks to "liberate" society from the traditional concept of family. From Hawaii to Vermont, they have attempted to consume the moral values of America by legalizing same-sex "marriage." A Political Gold Mine For years, homosexual activists have been fighting to force our nation to accept and embrace their lifestyle as normal and natural. And they have found it to be an uphill battle. Most Americans hold to reasonable values and concepts of morality, and the issue of same-sex "marriage" is no exception. A January 2000 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe marriages between homosexuals should not be recognized by the law as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages.1 But homosexual activists realize that same-sex marriage is a key issue. It has the potential of a political gold mine. "If nothing else were done at all, and gay marriage were legalized, 90 percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality would have been achieved," wrote Andrew Sullivan in Virtually Normal. "It is ultimately the only reform that truly matters."2 When homosexuals gain approval of same-sex marriage, they not only succeed in compromising society’s ethics, but they also receive marital rights such as tax exemptions, Social Security benefits reserved for married people, inheritance rights, property rights and much more. The Move Toward Same-Sex “Marriage” A Political Gold Mine Homosexual activists knew America would never accept same-sex "marriage" unless it was introduced incrementally. And that’s exactly what they did. Gay and lesbian couples started by having "commitment" ceremonies and announcing them in local newspapers. Some couples even managed to get liberal clergy to officiate at these events. But ceremonies and cohabitation were not enough. The activists wanted the benefits that come with marriage. They successfully lobbied many companies, winning health-care coverage and pension benefits for their "partners." The Walt Disney Company is one of a number of businesses that have expanded benefits to homosexual partners of their employees. Still, homosexual activists were not satisfied. They wanted legal recognition. Hence, domestic partnership legislation was born. Domestic partnership laws opened the door to many of the benefits of marriage—without the marriage certificate. Domestic partnership laws broke ground for the current push to secure the marriage license and all the cultural advantages of the legally wed. While some homosexual couples have managed to secure marriage licenses from liberal, local city halls, the real battle over same-sex marriage in America began on a tiny island in the Pacific. In December 1996, Hawaii Circuit Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the state may not prohibit same-sex marriages. Chang based the ruling, in part, on Hawaii’s Equal Rights Amendment.3 CWA Founder and Chairman Beverly LaHaye has long argued that this amendment erases all differences between sexes, thus encouraging same-sex marriage. Fortunately, in November 1998, 70 percent of Hawaiians voted to amend their state constitution to preserve and protect marriage between one man and one woman. The Hawaii Supreme Court deferred to the overwhelming vote of Hawaiians when it ruled against same-sex marriage. However, if just one state approved same-sex marriage, the rest of the country would face the looming threat of honoring these couples’ marital rights. This is because the U.S. Constitution’s "full faith and credit" provision guarantees that all states recognize the contracts and laws of other states. According to Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution, Congress has authority to set parameters on the "full faith and credit" provision. Thus, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA defined marriage in federal law as the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." It also clarified that no state shall be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But the catch is that DOMA only protects states that protect themselves by passing their own laws protecting marriage. To date, 33 states have such laws.4 Alaska was among the first states to ban same-sex marriage. Voters approved "Measure 2," an initiative that amended the state’s constitution to say that a "valid" marriage in Alaska can exist only between one man and one woman. A major victory came on March 7, 2000, when Californians passed Prop. 22, a constitutional amendment stating, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California." This state has long been recognized as a cultural leader. It is often said, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the country." Vermont proved that old saying false by refusing to follow the Golden State’s trend. The Vermont Supreme Court did not want to create same-sex marriage, but it did order the legislature to enact marital benefits for unmarried same-sex partners on December 20, 1999. The ruling stemmed from a suit filed in July 1997 by three couples—two lesbian and one homosexual—after their local town hall denied them marriage licenses. The Court ruled that the three parties should receive the same benefits as couples of the opposite sex. The court order went in direct opposition to the will of the people. On "Super Tuesday," 50 Vermont town meetings considered gay marriage. All rejected it by margins of 60 to 80 percent. "Civil unions" lost in 30 communities.5 A Political Gold Mine Vermont’s approval of same-sex civil unions could force the rest of the nation to accept homosexual couples. Because the U.S. Supreme Court regularly usurps legislative authority, the judicial system could override DOMA. Once homosexuals have a test case, litigators will challenge the U.S. Constitution’s "full faith and credit" clause. Ultimately, five Vermont judges may have changed the tradition of marriage nationwide, without the consent of the people. Already, Vermont town clerks have threatened resignation. Many refuse to issue same-sex union licenses. Though they face penalties and fines, these officials refuse to sacrifice their moral values. States with laws already on the books that conflict with same-sex "marriage"—such as sodomy laws—would spark countless court controversies and endless litigation. The issue would likely soon end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. A Political Gold Mine The homosexual agenda aims to water-down and redefine the concept of family. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force admitted, "Redefining the family is at the forefront of the gay and lesbian agenda." And legalizing same-sex "marriage" would pave the way. Already certain cities and municipalities around the nation, including Washington, D.C., have legalized gay adoption and foster care. Moreover, America’s public schools have begun to promote the new concepts of marriage and family on a grand scale. Health and sex-education classes include discussions on homosexuality. Marriage and family classes study homosexual families as one of the many different kinds of families. Many school systems are being used to persuade students that homosexuality is a healthy, normal lifestyle. At first, curriculum focused on tolerance. Now it has progressed to acceptance of homosexuality. The National Education Association has endorsed "It’s Elementary: Talking about Gay and Lesbian Issues in School" and "That’s a Family," two videos that promote homosexuality. A Political Gold Mine Many questions and concerns surround the issue of same-sex "marriage." Following are some of the most commonly asked questions and CWA’s responses. Q. Isn’t Society Discriminating Against Homosexuals By Denying Them Marriage Licenses? A. All Marriage Law Is Discriminatory. Marriage law discriminates on the basis of age, family relationships, marital status, as well as gender. To eliminate all discrimination in marriage law, the state would not only have to legalize same-sex marriage, it would also have to put its stamp of approval on bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, and early teen marriage. Obviously, this would not be healthy for society. Therefore, "discrimination" is necessary within marriage law for the common good. Q. Aren’t Those Who Oppose Same-sex "Marriage" Practicing The Same Prejudice That Kept Interracial Couples From Marrying In Years Past? A. Comparing Race to Homosexuality Is Like Comparing Apples To Oranges. Homosexual activists are always eager to link themselves to the genuine bigotry and discrimination racial minorities have suffered in America. In doing so, they make their fight out to be a valiant battle for civil rights. But as Reggie White, former defensive end for the Green Bay Packers, said, "Homosexuality is a choice, not a race." The fact is homosexuals are not a legal "minority." That is, they do not qualify for special protected class status. In order to do so, they would have to meet three criteria: Homosexuals do not meet any of these criteria. Shaking America’s Cultural Foundation A Political Gold Mine Same-sex marriage is more than just "a goal" of the homosexual agenda. It is THE goal. It is foundational and fundamental to the work of radical homosexuals. "Marriage is a stamp of approval," Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, told Washington, D.C.’s homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade. "It’s a legal symbol that society recognizes your relationship, that it’s real." Americans must take a stand and let their voices be heard. If they do not, America will sacrifice her values, beliefs and children on the altar of the homosexual agenda. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
