Initially, I intended on writing my dissenting opinion to last week’s cover story (‘Hate Prop 8’; Nov. 21) with a preponderance of historical and legal evidence. I would have chronicled the timeline of events that have culminated in the passing of Proposition 8: “Eliminate Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry-Initiative Constitutional Amendment” aka “Limit on Marriage: Constitutional Amendment” aka “The California Marriage Protection Act” (its given name). I would proceed to mention the numerous civil codes, bills, propositions, vetoes and court rulings that should have rendered the argument defunct long ago, upholding the traditional and true definition of marriage, but were discounted, as the consequence of a corrupt government and a degenerative people, while the government and its policies and practices were made a mockery of by those who believe in democracy only when it benefits them. Evidently, this will remain the trend until a “favorable” decision is reached; that is, favorable to homosexuals. Instead, I’ve decided, perhaps against my better judgment, to briefly discuss why same-sex marriage is against society’s best interest.
In my research, the most progressive, yet socially responsible, definition of marriage is given by the United States Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (Section 3a). It declares that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Those opposed to the traditional definition of marriage hold that 1) marriage has no original purpose and/or that 2) marriage, as it is, treats homosexuals as second-class citizens. Neither of these is true, and I’ll defend that position.
The argument that opposing same-sex marriage is discriminatory is an unreasonable declaration; discrimination is “born of prejudice based not on what but who,” in the words of Rabbi Aryeh Spero, radio talk show host and president of Caucus for America (www.caucusforamerica.com). He continues to say that, as it stands, marriage is reserved as the right of union between a man and a woman. As such, saying “no” to same-sex marriage does not take away that right of marriage from homosexuals. Homosexual men and women still maintain the same rights as heterosexuals: that is, to marry a member of the opposite sex (regardless of either’s orientation). The existing institution of marriage remains open to all.
To further prove that homosexuals are not being discriminated against, consider the attempt by two heterosexual men to marry one another for the purpose of bypassing certain property and/or economic laws. Since marriage is limited to a man and a woman the two would inexorably be denied a license, not on the grounds of their orientation per se, but because marriage between a man and a man, under any circumstance, is not legally permissible.
Now, those who claim that marriage has no original purpose or is not grounded in heterosexuality are sadly mistaken: human biology and the laws of early civilizations prove the opposite. For centuries, leaders of virtually all civilizations maintained that a man and woman had an obligation to raise the child they had created. While the childbearing capacity of a woman bound her physically to her child, a social construct (marriage) served to bring the father into a legal relationship with his offspring. Today, “an extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents,” wrote Dr. Kristin Moore, Ph.D., et al., in a 2002 research paper for Child Trends, an independent, nonpartisan research center dedicated to improving the lives of children and their families.
For those who contend that heterosexual marriage is plagued by divorce (a plausible argument), I agree; the prevalence of divorce has weighed heavily on the family, but this does not mean that its original purpose is lost or that we can or should use it to promote and accept an alternative. Redefining marriage undermines the family structure proven to be best for children. “As we consider that marriage is our most pro-child institution, it remains especially pertinent that the wants and desires of adults should not supersede the needs and rights of children to a mother and a father… Marriage is not a legal vehicle for equality; it is a social institution with children at its heart” (www.focusonthefamily.com).
Although I have taken arguments put forth by the left and addressed them, I trust that the opposition will discount my findings and opinions. The irony in their argument, as can be read in the opening quote of last week’s article about the country taking two steps forward and one step back, is its pure hypocrisy. Let me reiterate that those who believe in democracy only do so when it benefits them. Inevitably, those who make the most noise and are seemingly incapable of admitting defeat or playing fair — in some cases taking their actions to the extremity of violence — will get their way while prudent citizens are told that their opinions do not matter, that their voices are not heard and that their votes do not count (the implication of which is already apparent).
Until that day, I respectfully stand in opposition to homosexual marriage. I will continue to assert that the responsibility of any society is its own sustenance and that same-sex marriage undermines this effort as well as the foundation of the traditional, true and only acceptable form of a family and well-being of children.
Anthony “AJ” Parillo
Accounting, Class of 2009