One Man, One Woman

I think, just about everyone knows, that one of the most controversial issues out there, will be coming up this legislative session here in Delaware. That would be the  so-called gay marriage bill.

I use the term “so-called” because in my mind, as well as that of others within the state of Delaware, the two terms, “gay” and “marriage”, have no place together.

Now I know that saying this alone will anger many people on the left of the political spectrum.  They will instantly label me a hater, that will say that I am a homophobe, or worse. Many will think that I am some backwards hick, or maybe they will simply see me as just another conservative nut case.

That’s okay, there is a lot of that type of quick draw judging going around on both sides of the political spectrum lately. I have been taking those types of shots from the far right as well as the left, all of which leads me to believe that I am exactly where I want to be in the political spectrum.

That being said, let me trudge on here.  Why is it that so many people feel that “gay” and “marriage” have no place together?

Is it simply their fear of the unknown? The fear of the different? Is it simply their belief that the act of two men, or two women engaging in sex is unnatural? Do they actually have reasons why it is detrimental to society? The answer is most likely all the above.

We can start with the people who base their opposition to homosexuals marrying on their own feeling of faith and religion.  They believe that God created man and woman with the intention of the two joining in matrimony in order to procreate and to further the species of man. They feel that sex simply for pleasure is wrong. They also see sex between two people of the same-sex as unnatural and that it goes against God’s will.  They believe that this push for gay marriage is also tied to the push for gay parenting.  That those pushing for marriage to be redefined as being between anyone, not just between a man and a woman, are also looking to have the term of parents redefined, so as to be able to teach homosexuality in the school systems in order to further “normalize” the act.

I have to be honest, I do share these feeling in many cases, I do feel that homosexuality is unnatural, that it does go against God’s will, that it is a detriment to our society, in that it tears down the natural order of life and procreation.  For married homosexual couples to be able to have children of their own, they must go outside of their wedding vows.  When a man and a woman take their wedding vows, that means that they will cleave only unto each other.

For these couple to have children they must again go against God’s will. Either they must procreate with someone outside of their union, someone who is willing to give up the child, or they must, in the case of lesbians resort to artificial insemination. Again, my personal belief on this is that it is unnatural and outside of God’s will.  Now before someone brings up adoption, let me address that, adoption in my view is a useful  tool for the children who are conceived, yet unwanted. Children of single mothers who have the good sense not to abort their children, and the better sense to realize that they  cannot take care of these children.

That would bring us to the question of whether or not a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt? In my opinion, no. In my opinion a child should be raised by two parents, and those parents should be a man and a woman. I feel that to have children indoctrinated in the life style of homosexuality will only perpetuate that which is unnatural. I know that this may anger many, but it is how I feel.

Does this mean that I think homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to live their lives as they want? Not exactly. What it means is that I am one of those people who feel that homosexuality is a choice, a sexual preference, much in the same vein as a man who is sexually attracted to women with large breast, or dark hair. The same as some women are sexually attracted to men who are tall and have broad shoulders.

While I do believe that such behavior is a sin and goes against God’s will, I am also one of those people who believe that a person’s sin is between them and God, whether they believe in God or not. However, when they seek to involve a third-party, like a small child, then they are imposing their sins upon an innocent, and I feel it is our duty as a society to protect the innocent, the same as we protect them from any number of other things that may have a detrimental effect upon them.

So here in Delaware our Legislature has already decided in favor of allowing civil unions for homosexuals. This allows them to enter into a legal agreement between each other and the state, that declares that they are a legally bound couple and should be afforded all the rights of such.

As this battle for “gay marriage” has been waged those in the homosexual community, have time and again claimed that they were being denied such things as being admitted to their partner’s hospital room, well in today’s times I find it hard to believe that would even happen, but a civil union would cover that. They have claimed that they cannot inherit their partner’s wealth or estate, again a civil union should take care of that, but if not, there are many ways, from a will, to a power of attorney to set all of that up.

The civil union in my opinion was simply a stepping stone for this latest push for homosexual marriage. Those of us who opposed civil unions did so mostly because we knew that this would be the next logical step for those who seek to make it. We have however resigned ourselves to the fact that it has happened, which is exactly what the radicalized homosexual faction of that community is counting on. They know that once passed, that people would become, “comfortable” with civil unions. They also know that here in Delaware the fight will split mostly down partisan lines, with the Democrats on the pro-side, and Republicans on the anti-side.  They also know that right now the Democrats have enough votes to walk this through with barely a sweat.

Let me state, that my opposition to “gay marriage” is not based solely on my understanding of God’s will, as if such understanding were even possible. My opposition goes beyond that. I feel that there is a political agenda here as well as a personal agenda on the part of the radicalized left.

I truly believe that there are homosexual couples out there that want only to share their lives as they see fit. And to be honest, that again is between them and God.  However, I also believe that there is a radicalized faction within the homosexual community that is the political arm of that community.  I believe that this faction, along with the radical left of the Democrat Party are working together, and are using the average homosexual couple to achieve the political agenda.

So what is this agenda? I have felt for a long time that the agenda of the most radical of the left is to destroy the very foundation of this nation, which is our founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

Now many will ask, how can simply allowing homosexuals to “marry”, cause the downfall of the Constitution and the nation?

First one has to understand that the word marriage is a word that has certain formal and religious meaning for most people.  When people hear the word marriage, they often think of a religious ceremony in a church.

Second, here in Delaware, prior to passing the civil union bill, the Legislature had already passed a bill that specifically made it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.

So here we are in Delaware, with a law that says you cannot discriminate against homosexuals, and now some are seeking to pass a law that would strip marriage of its definition of, one man, one woman.  And even though the law in its current state does exempt churches from being forced to perform marriages for homosexuals, one has to wonder what the next move in this game will be?

I happen to think that all of these moves have been leading to a constitutional challenge. I believe that when you couple the anti-discrimination law with the redefining of marriage, the next step is to challenge a church, most likely the  Catholic Church since they are the largest and have the deepest pockets, to challenge their right to discriminate against homosexuals to be married within their faith of choice.

I believe that once the “Defense Of Marriage Act” is defeated in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I believe it will be, because the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to pass such law, though I feel the individual states do, but once it falls at that level, we will see in states like Delaware, that homosexuals will seek to be married within their faith of choice. Once they are denied that marriage, we will see groups such as the ACLU come in and challenge the church under the anti-discrimination law. The question will be, how can the church deny this couple a “MARRIAGE”, while allowing all these other couple a “MARRIAGE”? When the definition of “MARRIAGE” now includes any and all forms of couples?

We will see this argument taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be a challenge to the First Amendment and our freedom of religion. On the one side will be the churches arguing that to force them to marry homosexuals will violate their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. On the other side we will have the homosexual community, claiming that they have been discriminated against, and will use the state laws of anti-discrimination and the new definition of marriage as their defense.

I can see how this could easily spiral into a constitutional crisis. I can see how the radical left would call for a constitutional congress to settle it. I can see how that once they are able to play on the emotions of so-called fairness, that they might actually be able to pull this off.  Once that happens, once they are able to call a constitutional congress, and once they crack open that egg of law, they will be able to throw out the entire document and re-write a new one.

This would mark the end of the “American Experiment”. For once we allow the magic,  that our Founding Fathers discovered, to escape the bottle, we will never be able to find it again. We must protect this heritage of Liberty at all cost.

To touch on one of my earlier themes, when talking about this issue, those who are the most ardent opposition to the redefining of marriage, do so from the position of their faith. They speak only of how this is against God’s will, and how it is unnatural. They speak only of the religious aspects of the issue. The problem with that tactic, is that not all people will share their views on faith, if they have any faith at all. It will also allow the supporters of homosexual marriage to paint their opposition as simply  “bitter clingers”.

As I feel about most issues, if we are to defeat this attack on both marriage and in my opinion, the Constitution, then we  must have a multi-faceted approach. We cannot allow ourselves to be painted into a corner, where our only defense is one of religious fervor.  We should recognize that in this case the other side has a political agenda as well as a societal one. That they are seeking to not only change society and its view of this sexual preference, but certain factions within the movement are also seeking to change the political landscape of this nation, in a way that would leave it completely unrecognizable.

We must also recognize that this may be a fight here in Delaware that we conservatives are not equipped to win, based on the last elections. We should understand, that we must find a way to unite in order to defeat the real opposition.  I am not sure we can do that soon enough to stop this latest attack on both our traditional values and our Founding Principles, but we must try.

3 Comments on "One Man, One Woman"

  1. kavips says:

    Although I have a different opinion, I cannot fault you yours.. For, it was very close to mine 6 years ago. Back then I even sent a plea to the Liberal head of the Canadian Parliament entreating them to pursue the options of civil unions because gay marriage was not good for raising children….

    I was taken to task for that by a friend who was heterosexual, actually. . He emotionally described his growing up under an abusive marriage, how his mother would take the abuse for him, and how, he went to bed at night, crying for someone, anyone to love him….. He said it didn’t matter whether they were men or women. He just wanted love…. he needed it more than anything…

    I don’t think any Christian can deny, that God is about … Love…. So, in a situation where two awesome women decided to adopt a child, why wouldn’t God want that child to be loved by two parents, instead of either living in a foster home devoid of love, or being farmed out to an abusive adult, who used the foster system for his personal gratification….

    That, changed my mind… My God is a god of Love, and standing in the way of his Will, goes against everything I was taught in church….

    Now here is where the Republicans are losing an opportunity. You just spoke above of the Constitution and you used the words freedom and liberty…

    How can you say you are for Freedom and Liberty, when you disallow two people who are in love, (probably as much or more than you and your wife), not to marry, because a third party… might get offended….

    Inter-racial marriages were once deemed illegal for the same reason. A third party might get offended. All those bans have been struck down… Why? Because you can’t have a Constitution supposedly apply to all, if it doesn’t apply to blacks, women, Hispanics, American Indians….and people who love someone of the same sex…

    Republicans should have been at the forefront here. You and I have argued whether or not laws over the displaying of flags on one’s property are unconstitutional…. if saying you have to get rid of your flags is unconstitutional as you stated it should be,…. how much more unconstitutional, would it be to have government tell your people no, they can’t marry someone they love?

    See, you can’t have it both ways…. Either there is no such thing in America as owner’s property rights, those go up entirely; or gays do have the right to marry whom they choose… just as someone has the right to do to their property as they wish?

    In both situations, the regulations are in place because “others” may be offended… Passing the option to marry, doesn’t mean you have to like gay marriage or even sanction it personally… You can pass this bill and hate gay marriage. How you feel is your right, your prerogative, and your choice…. Allowing gay marriage, is simply a recognition that the Founding Fathers most of all, wanted us to be free to be happy…. If you don’t pass this gay marriage bill, then every freedom we take for granted, must also be allowed to come under review if anyone at anytime in the future, ever feels the need….. Since we obviously can ban a marriage, we certainly have the authority to dictate exactly everything a property owner must do, no matter what the cost, if he wishes to retain the deed of the property.,… If the latter situation is unacceptable to you, then so must be the former…..

    One’s personal choice and private feelings, shouldn’t be what runs or ruins other peoples’ lives… Including the defining moment of their life…. choosing their life partner…..

    Thank you for reading this far…

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    Kavips, I would ask you to go back and read what I wrote once more, or else you may be projecting your views of others upon me. I never said that two people could not, or should not be allowed to love each other.
    I did say, “While I do believe that such behavior is a sin and goes against God’s will, I am also one of those people who believe that a person’s sin is between them and God, whether they believe in God or not. However, when they seek to involve a third-party, like a small child, then they are imposing their sins upon an innocent, and I feel it is our duty as a society to protect the innocent, the same as we protect them from any number of other things that may have a detrimental effect upon them.” And I stand by it, it is my opinion.
    Also, my feelings that the push for gay “marriage” goes beyond two people loving each other also is my opinion. I feel that two people can love one another without the sanction of government. My fear is that there is a larger agenda at work, that being an attack on the freedom of religious organizations to decide who they will or will not marry. In my view marriage is a union before God, not government. If a church freely chooses to sanction a homosexual wedding, that is their choice, but what the radicalized faction of the homosexual community is seeking here seems to be a government mandate that would eventually be used to “FORCE” churches to perform these weddings. That is my concern.

  3. kavips says:

    Looking over your reply, I would venture there appears to be some confusion in your statement between what is right and what is allowed by law.

    If the law allows a union that in every retrospect is equal to that of a heterosexual marriage to not have the same rights as those that are married. then that is not fair.

    It doesn’t matter whether you or your beliefs support it…We allow other religions to practice, even though we don’t support them either.

    Quite often during the courses of history, the state pursued one course of action and the church pleaded for another. Those times actually made the church stronger…

    What is at stake here, is not whether you, the church, or God approve of gay marriage. It is whether allowing them the full rights that come with marriage, is fair.

    If it was your child, would you still think they should be discriminated against. Even though you yourself would never follow that same course of action, you would still want what was best for them.

    Fair is fair.

Got something to say? Go for it!