It’s not about condemning someone’s lifestyle. It’s not about inequality. It’s not even about religion. It’s about equality. It’s about the preservation of mankind and the institution that fosters that regeneration.
I understand that antagonists of Proposition 8 claim that the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman is unfair. I might have to agree to some degree that is it unfair. I understand that two people of the same sex can be devoted to one another just as much if not more than a man and a woman. I understand that they want the title of “MARRIAGE.” But marriage is more than just a title. I hope that same-sex proponents understand that one. When I hear the word “UNFAIR,” I think of a child, selfish in its ways and ignorant of consequences. When my sister turned 5, I pouted all day long because it was her birthday and not mine. I coveted her rollerblades when it was me who was saving up for a pair of my own and she was just given them, mocking me. It was a cruelty I thought at the time I couldn’t take. So I cried.
So I can relate to the same-sex marriage proponents who are longingly looking at married couples, questioning why they can’t have rollerblades too when they have been just as dedicated in saving for a pair. Its’ tough to want what others have. The answer - it’s just not your birthday. Gay proponents are pouting. Pouting not about a birthday but because they want a right. A right that comes at a cost to others. Freedom is good. Freedom is what founded this nation. But order also needs to be present. Freedom flourishes when coupled with responsibility. Otherwise it breeds a society full of disrespectful, egocentric, demanding ingrates. And I’m not just speaking about marriage in society.
Please understand that my argument is not for a religious purpose. Although I am a very dedicated religious woman, this is about protecting society and the freedom of all people. Same-sex couples can live together, spend the rest of their lives together, buy a house together – totally fine that’s their business. But to make it legal changes the way our society functions.
“Perhaps the most critical feature of traditional marriage is the impact the institution has on the creation and raising of children. Simple biology proves that relationships only between a man and woman can result in the creation of a child. It just can’t happen between two men or two women. Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Logically, it only makes sense that society would want to encourage marriage between a child’s biological mother and father, and that is exactly what
To be sure, raising children today is infinitely more difficult than in past generations. Many single moms and dads do heroic work every day to raise their children in a loving, secure and safe environment. They have earned our respect and admiration. But laws and public policies are supposed to promote the ideal – the “common good” – for society, especially when it comes to our children. A child who is left fatherless through divorce or abandonment can certainly be lovingly raised by her mother, just as a single dad can lovingly raise his child without a mother. But to promote the idea of purposefully depriving children of a mother or a father simply because a miniscule portion of the population wants to experiment with homosexual marriage is not an acceptable risk.”
- Protect Marriage.com
Besides destroying the basis of societal function, let’s destroy that democratic system that we’ve been fighting for the past 300 years. That sounds swell! What happened to liberty and justice for all? Now I know what you’re thinking, what about the liberty and justice for all the gay couples? Regardless of the issue, the constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people. The majority of Californians voted in favor of a proposition, only to have their right disregarded. 7 million were cheated out of a vote that was rightfully theirs. That is unconstitutional. How childish that the opposing side had to pout their way to court.
I was struck by this comment I saw by a reader of the LA-Times: