6-5-06 Addressing the so called Defense of Marriage Amendment

(excerpt from my upcoming book) Concerning the Defense of Marriage Amendment; those who support this unprecedented measure simply are focusing their hatred in the wrong place and are riding high on the “it doesn’t affect me” attitude. I chose the word ‘unprecedented’ because our Bill of Rights has never been amended to remove or prevent a right inaliable to the people. Even the eighteenth Amendment, which introduced prohibition, did not take away the right to drink, it specifically banned the manufacture, import, export, sale and distribution of alcohol; Congress was very careful not to target We the People.

Our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority from impeding the rights of the minority; even if those minorities are unpopular ones, such as homosexuals. I have heard four major points supporting the Defense of Marriage Amendment, which would more aptly be named the ‘Banning of Gay Marriage’, and when approached logically, a quick review of each point negates its supposed righteousness.

Firstly, many have pointed out that homosexuals should not marry as they proclaim the “sanctity of marriage”. If this point is paramount, then we need to include in this amendment the banning of Elvis Presley impersonators from marrying two intoxicated lovers at three o’clock in the morning in Las Vegas; after all if you’re not married by a Priest, Minister, or Rabi, how can a marriage be sanctimonious? Furthermore, along the same lines of thinking, we must ban marriages performed by city officials and local municipalities because they too are not holy and any wedlock in a court house would not be sanctimonious. Of course too, if marriage is truly sanctimonious, then the Federal Government would have to ban divorce… after all; how can we protect marriage if we allow marriages to dissolve? 

Secondly, others argue that there is absolutely no reason for gays to marry because they cannot have children. If this point is to be pursued, if marriage is to be based upon producing offspring, we must then ban all marriages between heterosexual couples who cannot have children. Neo-Conservative Republican’s should welcome support denying a marriage based on a fertility test.

Thirdly, still others state that the Bible condemns homosexuality, we are a Christian Nation, and therefore must follow the teachings of the Bible seem to be selectively picking verses to live by. If that is true, then we as a “Christian Nation” we of course cannot pick and choose which biblical verses to adhere to and which to ignore; all must be followed verbatim. So, any child that does not honor their mother and father must be punished severely; even in cases of child abuse or incest parents must be honored... right? Exodus 20:21 specifically states we can have slaves, provided we set them free, without payment, after six years; that verse goes on to say that if the slave comes to us with a wife he can keep her however, if the master gives the slave a wife, the master may keep the woman and any children. The bible is also clear that those working on the Sabbath shall be stoned to death. Now, I’ll put the breaks on here; honestly before I beat this third point to death, let’s just agree that I could pen an essay concerning the ramifications of taking every Biblical verse literally and precisely but, I do not wish to stray too far off topic. 

The fourth reason, this concept of “what society wants” or “what the majority wants” when it comes to marriage is exceedingly more ludicrous than any of the previous three. Since when do any two person’s marriages require the approval of the majority? I am quite confident that if a survey was taken today concerning interracial marriage, there are places in these United States were the majority would vote to ban a black man from marrying a white woman. Similar issues have risen throughout our nation history, such as during the 1960s where in many states the ‘majority’ did not approve of blacks attending whites only schools. In the early 1920s the majority saw it “traditional” and “customary” to allow only men to vote. Earlier many states considered slavery to be a "customary" and a time-honored ‘right’. Still earlier Native Americans were considered by the majority to be savages and the wholesale slaughter of ‘Indians’ was a “long established and accepted” method of dealing with the tribes.

Bottom line, it took guts for our leaders of yesteryear to take a stand and support unpopular minorities and it will take guts for the leaders of today to rightfully take a stand and become the leaders of tomorrow. The upcoming Senate vote will separate the visionaries who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights from those weaklings and cowards who will blindly and with bigotry follow crowd.