GAY MARRIAGE - My Term Paper

Forty-one American states define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, twenty-seven of
those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting
marriage redefined. Is this fight about equal rights? Having already received the same rights as married couples, for the most part as a nationwide provision – homosexual activists are mobilizing for yet another attack on the heterosexual lifestyle. They have taken up the cause of redefining marriage.

Using the same guise of equality for all – the activists now seek to change the traditional
definition of marriage from man and wife – nationally to, ‘partners for life.’ This is an action
that will serve no function toward furthering rights of any kind. It merely stands as a selfish
gesture from selfish people, who do not wish to live in accord with traditional values. The moral
code that established the United States as a superpower is being dealt harsh blows from the
inside that threaten to destroy the very fiber it was established upon. With a war cry of
’Homosexual Equality!’ the gay and lesbian coalition with the support of the ACLU, tears little
pieces out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to use in rallying supporters
who do not want to see the whole picture or have been blinded by rhetoric. In this paper I will
show exactly what the historic documentation says and place it back in the original context.
The gay and lesbian coalition and ACLU use as a common ground the words ‘separation
of church and state’ and ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ as the basis for their
argument. Let us examine what our founding fathers said and meant.

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Did our founding fathers want the church and state to be completely separate? History
Scholars teach that American independence and civil liberties was profoundly influenced by a
13th century document called the ‘Magna Carta.’ This document was a letter to England’s King
John, from his barons or local land owners; the opening paragraph, the preamble or premise
of which says:
“John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy
and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects,
greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all
our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church
and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable
fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy
Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn
of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict
of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, sub-deacon and member of the household of our
lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the
illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of
Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz
Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew
Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.” (The Magna Carta, 1215)

Give particular notice that the premise of this document by no means separates church from
state. It firmly and completely establishes God’s rightful place in every branch the
government in the ‘Primary Superpower’ of the time. Something that our forefather’s wanted
for us, the future American Colonies, their ancestors and heirs.

In the Declaration of Independence further states in its initial paragraphs say:
In Congress July 4, 1776 THE Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United
States of America; notice that the language used was drafted “In Congress, [and
by a] Unanimous Declaration of....”
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
The Declaration of Independence was a public decree before the nations of the world and
appealing to whom for support to govern? Let us read the first sentence of the last paragraph and find out:
‘We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions…’ Again the document stipulates “in General Congress” (Declaration of
Independence, 1776).

The founding fathers wanted a separation church and state – yet appealed
to ‘the Supreme Judge of the World – in General Congress? The request in this declaration is
specific, decent and fair treatment according to the Laws of Nature and of Natures’ God as they
are endowed by the Creator... which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness AND to allow
the Supreme Judge of the World (GOD) to stand above them and hold them accountable. Where can we find evidence of creation, a creator AND the definitions of life, liberty, happiness and the
Supreme Judge of the world? Only one place – The BIBLE.
Since the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. (The Constitution of the United States, 1789)

It does not say that government and church should be separate, it says that government cannot
tell us what religion to practice or where to practice it.

Now that we have gone over the civil rights as they have been written, this action –
another request for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage stands in open defiance of
the will of the American people, which has already been hotly debated and solved through
legislation. Forty-one out of fifty states have laws that currently define marriage as ‘the union
between one man and one woman.’ Twenty-seven of those states have amended their state
constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. (Vestal 2008 and Petersen 2004) Why are
homosexuals still pressing to redefine marriage? It is not a matter of civil rights or civil liberties, therefore the ACLU should not be able to argue the homosexual agenda. What is the
homosexual agenda? According to confessed homosexuals as recorded in the book ‘Marriage on
Trial’ (Stanton and Maier 2004), we find several interesting points. First is that affirming gay
marriage will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals.
Historically the marriage relationship has been about the bringing together of one man and one
woman for a permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationship that brings forth children
and causes a given society to prosper. The second key point in the book is that the equality
argument is a rhetorical device adopted by the homosexual community to rally supporters. The freedom to marry was actually introduced by a Los Angeles Public Relations Firm, as a ploy to force gay marriage into the heterosexual mainstream. Allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage would categorize the terms male and female as meaningless interchangeable parts.
Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?
(Stanton and Maier 2004) Absolutely, but we do not always call that commitment marriage.
Parents commit themselves to children, but are not married; friends love and commit to one
another, but are not married; co-workers, athletes and soldiers commit to one another, but we do not call that married either. Marriage is about a whole lot more than just love and commitment. Why restrict marriage to persons of different gender? (Stanton and Maier 2004) If love and commitment were the only criteria for marriage and not gender than arguments for polygamy and polyamorism becomes an issue as well. If genders and numbers become no longer a question, what will stop the ‘new-family’ from becoming nuclear also? What if a same sex couple were, under the guise of family togetherness, to ask their sperm and egg donors to become part of their familial relationship? Polyamorists, polygamists, and hedonists stand eagerly at the wings, waiting to capitalize on the gains made by same sex marriage advocates. If you don’t believe this statement, you should Google Search the word POLYAMORY and see how much serious support there is for the same sex marriage. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
What about equal rights and justice for all in America? Homosexuals have the right to marry,
but no individual or group has the right to redefine marriage for themselves, when it affects the
whole society. The Equal Protection under law clause in the 14th amendment grants same sex
couples all the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The argument is not about rights at all. Factually speaking, historic figures for civil rights most brilliant minds never advocated
same sex marriage as a civil right. These figures include: Frederick Douglas, Mohandas K.
Gandhi, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Elisabeth Cady-Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not one of them ever hinted that marriage rights were an
impediment to human equality. It is important to note that in the Netherlands, were
gay marriage has been legal for several years sources acknowledge the fact that most gay
marriages only last 1.5 years, with the primary reason for dissolution being multiple partnership
jealousy. In the American culture, heterosexual relationships defined as traditional marriage last generally a minimum of ten years, with the primary reason for dissolution being irreconcilable differences. Professor Paul Nathanson, who is admittedly gay, says homosexual bonding involves purely copulation, while heterosexual relationships are formed for reproduction and the survival of the species. Heterosexual bonding is a cultural norm, not just a lifestyle choice. Over the years, many scientists, worldwide, have tried to establish the immutability of homosexuality but all attempts have met with failure. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
The truth of the issue is best defined by the prominent homosexual activist and leading voice the gay and lesbian community Michelangelo Signorile as quoted in OUT Magazine, a monthly
homosexual publication, “The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down – ‘this is simply about equality for gay couples’ – and offer same sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system,…a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture… Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious right contends it is.” (Michelangelo Signorile, 1996)

So is gay marriage a human rights issue, not at all. It is a matter of selfish people whom
psychologists for several years have stated that homosexual behavior is: “a treatable form of
mental illness” (Bromberg, W.); “a learned behavior that can be [discouraged] through moral
upbringing” (LeBlanc, D. April 2005); “linked to a fair to poor parental relationships” (Bieber,
I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., et al.); “that is learned in the
formative years of adolescence.” (Helen Cothran In Current Controversies 2003). It is a matter of selfish people, not unlike King John, wanting to enforce their will on free people who have
already spoken and decided exactly what they want, for marriage - to be the union between one man and one woman. Perhaps this whole civil rights argument can best be summed up in a quote from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (King Jr., 1963) What is the content of American Character? Where can American Character or any character for that matter best be described? I am certain of one thing and that is experience has proven that tantrums thrown by spoiled children are best left ignored by people of character, who are properly educated. The law is specific and is LAW. Forty-one American states define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, twenty-seven of those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting marriage redefined… the ‘New Revolutionary War’ marches on.

I was given 250/250 points for this...