Freedom-Fighters Forum

By William J. Dell – November 2009

In 2008, California’s Proposition 8 amended the State Constitution by a 52.25% to 47.75% vote so that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This support of traditional marriage was again tested in Maine in 2009. This test came after a wave of New England States joined Iowa in performing “gay marriages.” Maine defeated Question 1 which was an effort to give gay and lesbian companionships the legal status of traditional married couples. The result was 53% to 47% in favor of traditional marriage. With this vote the tide of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was once again stopped.

There are currently five states performing gay marriages – Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The practice in these States took effect after either legislative action or court order. New York and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but do not grant them.

The question for the American people should be that which the Founding Fathers would have asked concerning “Same Sex Marriages.” What does God say about the marriage covenant? Based on what is said in Holy Writ, what should the Constitutional law of the land be based on if we are to base our laws on our Judeo-Christian heritage?

In the Book of Genesis, we read:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [Genesis 1:267, 28 KJV] [Emphasis added]

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. … And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. [Genesis 2:18, 21-25 KJV] [Emphasis added]

God did not bring to Adam another man, he brought a woman. God did not provide for Eve another female companion. The word of God is quite clear that the Marriage Covenant as established by the Creator was for the purpose of “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” Same sex couples cannot fulfill this Scriptural injunction; and therefore, they should not be given the same status as traditional marriages between one man and one woman.

Any thinking individual understands that homosexuality, male or female, cannot support or further continuing civilization. If there were NO traditional marriage and its inherent reproduction, mankind would ultimately perish from the earth. At which point the earth will have subdued man rather than man subduing the earth. For this reason alone the support of Traditional Marriage of one man and one woman should be supported and protected by our laws in the interest of perpetuating our society and nation. This is NOT inequality. It is just recognition of the inherent differences between same-sex companionships and traditional marriages.

The proponents of “gay marriage” tout that it is their civil right to marry. This writer believes that Marriage is not a civil right. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris) defines marriage within the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as juxtaposed to Political and Civil Rights.

In Adam Kolasinski’s “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage,” he states:

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security [instead of their own], claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. [clarification added]

By definition Civil Rights must be universally applied. Marriage Law has ALWAYS been applied universally with certain restrictions to ensure healthy procreation. Even though Marriage Law states that every adult is entitled to marry, these laws also state whom an adult may NOT marry. Within Marriage Law, adults are prohibited from marrying near kin, usually defined as first cousins or nearer kin. Polygamy, polyandry and marriage of a parent to their child regardless of the child’s age are also prohibited. And except as noted previously, 45 States still prohibit marriages between members of the same sex based on the precedent that marriage is for procreation. Since these restrictive rules within Marriage Law are universally applied there is no, nor can there be, a violation of an individual’s civil rights. Such restrictions are based on the social and cultural norms of peoples around the world for millennia.

In James W. Skillen’s “Same-Sex “Marriage” Is Not a Civil Right,” he states:

If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman’s pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.

It is interesting to me that all “Special Interest Groups,” including the Rainbow Coalition of gays and lesbians, want the majority of Americans to be tolerant of their position, but they exhibit no tolerance for the position of the majority of Americans. It is evident to this writer that to them, the special interests, tolerance of their views and/or life styles is not tolerance at all — They do not want tolerance – They want nothing but absolute acceptance. TOLERANCE IS NOT ACCEPTANCE! If someone accepts another’s view on any subject, they do NOT have to be tolerant of it