Same Sex Marriage Ban
Essay Preview: Same Sex Marriage Ban
Report this essay
After reading the article by the guest columnist in the April 23 issue of the Three Penny Press I felt compelled to give a rebuttal to his arguments for gay marriage. I realize that many of those who read this, including students, teachers, administrators, and parents, do not agree with me on this issue; but please do not skip this article because you may not agree with the position I support. Please hear me out, and let me explain why I believe what I do. I have no false illusions of bringing a mass change of opinion about gay marriage with this article. However, distressed by the flagrant misrepresentation of the issues by the previous guest communist I would like to bring some light to the situation.
Marriage as defined by American Heritage Dictionary is the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife. Civilization has evolved around this union of man and woman since the beginning of humanity. The two sexes naturally evolved to produce children and to raise them properly. The concept of gay marriage undermines what marriage has stood for and is objectively unnatural.
The previous column claims that organizations like The Coalition for Marriage and Defend the Family are using propaganda to hook people who dont know how to think for themselves. I find it appalling that such rash and harsh generalizations can be made about organizations who all have very clear and logical explanations for where and why they oppose gay marriage posted on their website. These organizations, very rightly, believe that legalizing gay marriage will cause a vast array of social and economic problems, not to mention the moral and ethical problems.
One of the most poorly founded arguments from the previous article is that our president, George W. Bush, is using gay marriage as some sort of polarizer so he doesnt have to face up to all of his supposed screw ups with the economy and the war in Iraq. I would love to address both of these issues in great detail but due to space restrictions I will be forced to summarize. The claim that Bush is using gay marriage as a tool to bring the conservative vote to the republican ticket is ridiculous. He is forcing his opponent to actually make a stand on a divisive issue. Despite whatever flaws Bush has, he is a man of principles and he is standing up for something he believes in. He has stood up for Pro-family/Pro-life since his first campaign for Governor of Texas. Also in order for Bush to be using gay marriage as a ploy to cover up the problems with the economy, there actually has to be a problem with the economy. Unemployment numbers are as low as they have been since 2000, and there recently have been record booms in economic recovery. I wont say anything about the war in Iraq because even if I wrote a whole article on the topic, it would not effect the way people think about it. The only thing I will say is that people should examine the hypocrisies of blaming Bush for jumping the gun on Iraq but not being vigilant about 9/11.
In one of the most disgraceful examples of judicial activism four judges in Massachusetts, absent a single reference to legislative intent or a single legal precedent, ruled that marriage between members of the same sex to be legal. This was blatant disregard for democracy, legislative intent and legal precedent
I also found it quaint that the other column decided to discount a “historical book” such as the Bible, which is the foundation of the moral beliefs of a vast majority of our country because it says not to eat shrimp. Had the previous column examined why the Bible bans eating shrimp it would have found that shrimp, and fish as a whole, cause thousands of deaths each year even today because of contaminants like ciguatera fish poisoning and other fish flesh diseases which unlike Eboli, cannot be cooked away.
The previous column also asks that gay people should decide any policy about gay marriage.