More in: From the D.O.M.

All articles in: From the D.O.M.

Marriage Amendment

From the D.O.M.: Pat Bullock
Friday, February 25, 2005

I want to express my appreciation to the churches for allowing me the opportunity to be part of the attempt to urge our legislators to pass a bill banning same-sex marriages. I spoke to the Federal and State Affairs Committee on January 25, 2005. This article will show what I said.

The Family Research Council in Washington D.C. has provided the public with pertinent information about the same-sex marriage issue. My convictions and statements to you last year were made before I received any data from them. This new statement is relying heavily on their research and most of my information will come from their material.

Same-sex 'marriage' proponents have a philosophy that will totally destroy marriage as we know it. Their sole criterion for marriage is the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." If that premise is accepted and marriage is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman, it will be impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex, even non-human "partners."

To allow same-sex marriages could open up the possibility of polygamous relationships. Polygamy means "many loves." There is a segment of people in America who reject monogamy and claim that having multiple partners brings people into a more intimate relationship. One proponent of this ideology is David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan. On page 29 of the book, Beyond Gay Marriage, author Stanley Kurtz quotes David Chambers' argument that, "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

There is strong evidence that same sex relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In an article entitled "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003), Maria Xiridou states, "A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years." She goes on to say, "…the same Dutch study found that 'committed' homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year."

One of the many arguments against banning same-sex marriage is that it violates the homosexual's civil rights. That is a ludicrous argument. It is obvious that no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A parent cannot marry their child, have two or more spouses, or marry another married person. Homosexuals attempt to portray themselves as being discriminated against like the Black population. Harry Jaffa writes in his book, Homosexuality and the Natural Law, "Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of the opposite sexes, not the same sex."

In October of 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued that marriage is a fundamental right. It ruled that the state's ban on homosexual marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest" and "does not discriminate." The court also stated that "recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage'."

Another argument used against this amendment is that "you can't legislate morality." That is an absurd argument because every law we have is based upon a moral principle. People do not mind the use of moral and religious arguments when dealing with other issues such as racial discrimination, capital punishment, the war in Iraq, prostitution, theft or fraud.

Homosexuality is unnatural. The human body was not designed for sexual intercourse between people of the same gender.

One question I keep hearing over and over is, "How does gay marriage harm your marriage?" I have other questions. If I printed counterfeit twenty dollar bills, how would that hurt your pocketbook? What if several carpenters constructing a building used different measurements? What if some used the metric system and others used the American foot and inches system? There must be a standard or society will become socially chaotic.

The Family Research Council quotes Dr. Pitirim Sorokim, the eminent Harvard sociologist who "analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived."

The most powerful argument I know for protecting marriage and opposing same-sex marriages comes from the Bible. Jesus said, "Haven't you read … that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female, and He also said: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become ONE FLESH", Matthew 19:4-5. If God had designed men to marry men, He would have made only men. If Kansas can't figure out what marriage is then it has lost its moral compass. When you redefine marriage you redefine morality. When you redefine morality you have redefined life itself rather than accepting what a Holy God created.