HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 18, 2005 The Gay Community is screaming "discrimination" in the matter of gay "marriages." Why? The gay community claims that prohibitions against gay "marriages" are unconstitutionally discriminatory because they deny them the same rights as heterosexual couples to marry. First of all, there is no Constitutional "right" to be married, plus, banning gay "marriage" between two men or two women is NOT denying them any rights. By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of providing a stable basis for families-- especially children. Gays are perfectly able to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Simple, huh? If gays are psychologically unable to form a loving attachment with someone of the opposite sex, they are also free NOT to marry--just like heterosexuals. Sex is NOT love. Desiring someone sexually is NOT the same thing as loving them. This is as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals, so where's the "discriminatory" behavior on the part of the government? Likewise, no one prevents same-sex couples from enjoying all the benefits of living together that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. All that's necessary is a contractual agreement. To be completely enforcable, such an agreement should be formalized, but no one is preventing any gay man or woman from doing so. I am a firm believer in the principle that a property owner is the sole determiner of who should enjoy their property, when and how. The principle of "public accomodation" is well- established as a matter of law, so no one is permitted to bar accommodations to gay couples any more than they are permitted to bar accommodations to mixed-race couples. Again, I ask. Where's the "discrimination?" Gays are free to name anyone they wish to be executors of their estates, serve as their advocate if they are incapacitated for some reason or to be the beneficiaries of their insurance. Most governmental entities (and most major businesses) permit the sharing of one's fringe benefits with someone of the same sex--that is, naming a same-sex partner as a dependent for health insurance or inheritance purposes. Where's the discrimination? The word "discrimination" is much overworked. It's used to marginalize those with whom a specific group disagrees, but discrimination is NOT necessarily a bad thing. We discriminate every day by making CHOICES. Should the grower of pork be able to sue a cook for "discrimination" if the cook chooses to serve beef or chicken exclusive of his product? Of course not, but our fictitious cook IS practicing "discrimination." Far be it for me to tout "majority rules," but last November, we put the issue of gay marriage to a vote of the people of this country in 11 States. Gay marriage failed, fairly spectacularly, in each of those States--by margins of as much as 70% to 30%. That's more a reflection of Americans' disapproval of "in-your- face" behavior on the part of some gays than it is an indictment of Americans for being bigoted. It should be noted here that a majority of those who voted to ban gay marriage said that they would have no problem with "civil unions" between gays, but that "marriage" should be the exclusive provence of heterosexual couples. Why, then, do gays insist on calling their unions "marriages?" All that's done is antagonize a large proportion of the country. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's decision that Florida's ban on gay marriage IS constitutional, so that should settle the matter for awhile. I wouldn't count pro-gay-marriage advocates out just yet, though. This group doesn't want the majority of us to merely accept gays. It wants us to celebrate their "gayness." Sorry, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net ------------- All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
