President Bush made a recent statement about one of the goals of his second term. Well, here I’ll quote him. “A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is necessary for a decent society.” That statement bothers me, for several reasons.
One, Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed every citizen “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I don’t believe anyone would debate the idea of marriage being categorized as ‘pursuit of happiness.’ So, by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we are restricting the inalienable rights guaranteed to homosexuals.
But the main problem I find with President Bush’s statement is as follows: President Bush is not a homosexual. Neither is anyone (I’d think) who voted to approve the ban in the 11 states that the referendum passed in. Think about that. The measure is being passed by everyone who will not be affected by it. Let’s say for a moment that gay marriage was allowed everywhere in the U.S. Will any heterosexual male or female be affected at all? Will their lives be altered in any way, shape or form? No. Furthermore, homosexuals will be greatly affected and will be happier knowing they can marry their loved one. After all, marriage is a fundamental human institution that has been practiced for more than 5,000 years.
Proponents of the ban will argue that gay marriage is ‘unnatural’ and insist that homosexuals are only homosexuals by choice. First of all, if homosexuality is a choice, why is there evidence of homosexuality in animals? Did these animals just decide to be gay at some point in their lives? I find that very hard to believe. And if we accept that said animals were born homosexuals (how can you not?), can we really say that homosexuality is unnatural?
One point that goes in favor of the ban is the various statements in the bible denouncing homosexuality in general, basically referring to it as a sin. To be perfectly honest, I can’t really say much to refute that. It’s pretty much right there in black and white. But what the bible advises us shouldn’t be mandated by law; it should be a choice. If one chooses to be a homosexual, that’s their choice. If someone else believes that they’ll go to hell as a result of their choice, then that’s their belief. We should not impose our beliefs on the whole of the population. For instance, Jews cannot eat certain meats unless they’ve been blessed and cut a certain way. Christians aren’t generally denied certain foods. Nevertheless, the Jewish community sees no need to impose this idea on the rest of the population. The same goes with Islam. One of the five pillars of Islam dictates that one prays towards Mecca five times a day. Do they force people to pray? No. But if you’re a good Muslim, you do. Whether or not one can be a good Christian and a homosexual is up to Christians. But denying people that choice is rather overbearing.
Nevertheless, what I have said is moot. The referendum passed in 11 out of 11 states where it was voted on. And in the increasingly Republican government, it seems like such a ban would not be out of the question. I can merely hope that people in the future can see past the ‘ickyness’ of gay marriage and realize what’s best for Americans as a whole.