The Constitutional Amendment in North Carolina to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman has passed by a wide margin of 61%. She was the last of the Southern States to do so, yet you would think from the uproar that she was the first. State law already banned homosexual marriages, but the constitutional amendment gives it more teeth, stronger legal roots, and also formally banned civil unions as well. It did not ban private contracts.
With today’s vote, there are 31 States with constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of homosexual unions. Of these;
- 10 enumerate that only homosexual marriage is unconstitutional,
- 17 enumerate that both homosexual marriage and civil unions are unconstitutional
- 2 make homosexual marriage, civil unions, and other private contracts unconstitutional,
- 1 is odd; Hawaii. It's amendment doesn’t ban homosexual marriage, instead it allows the State to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Virginia's amendment goes further by preventing the State from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage. This is different from the North Carolina language that would allow private contracts which can be enforced by the legal system.
Similarly, Michigan, in addition to banning homosexual marriage/civil unions, parrots the federal DOMA by forbidding benefits such as health insurance, survivor benefits, etc. Nebraska’s Initiative was declared unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in November of 2005 but that ruling was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States”.
The Federal Government has also codified marriage under the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by wide majorities and was subsequently signed into law by President “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton on September 21, 1996.
It says simply, in Section 1, that no State or agency of the Federal government is required to recognize as a marriage a homosexual relationship considered a marriage in another state that permits such. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of homosexual marriage for all federal purposes, including Social Security survivors' benefits, the filing of joint tax returns, insurance benefits for government employees, gay partner medical coverage, etc.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship".
Section 3. Definition of marriage
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife".
It should also be noted that sexual orientation is not a constitutionally protected status.
So it seems to have the support of Law.
But what about The People? The citizenry of the country are evenly divided in credible polls on the issue of homosexual marriage. This is disturbing, as 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, with one of the bedrocks of Christian (plus Jewish and Islamic) theology being the prohibition on homosexuality.
Fortunately our founding fathers took a dim view of “the popular vote”, or as it is better known, Athenian or Direct Democracy, and the fact that 50% of the population supports a thing, particularly an “abomination”, does not mean anything. This is not a Democracy, contrary to the misperceptions of the uninformed. As article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution plainly states,
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence”.
This means we elect representatives to “represent” our best interests in our stead. This mechanism was intended to prevent the ignorant masses from unduly influencing matters that they are not qualified to be meddling in. See my upcoming article, “Is America a Democracy” and my upcoming series on election reform for expanded details.
So why don’t people want homosexuals to have same rights as we do?
This question is a typical dishonorable strategy of liberals, as it is a glaring petitio principia error of logic. Proponents of homosexual marriage bemoan that they are not given the same rights as the rest of us, yet this is fallacious and misleading, and is also a convenient red-herring. The fact is that they do have the same rights as we do; to marry someone of the opposite sex, or not. They are not allowed to marry more than one person (polygamy), and neither are heterosexuals. I do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, and neither do they. I do not have the right to marry my sister or brother, and again, neither do they. So how do we have ‘different’ rights?
Of course you can’t have a discussion of this nature without the subjects pulling out of the “Free Abrogate Personal Responsibility Card”, wherein they, in true liberal fashion, blame someone or something else ( in this case the nebulous and intangible Mother Nature ) for the way they are. In short, it boils down to, “it’s not my fault and therefore I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions, choices and behaviors. I will claim it is not my choice and I was born that way, so I can claim rights I could not otherwise claim”.
Let’s just say not everyone agrees on that, even gays. Cynthia Nixon, the actress known as lawyer Miranda Hobbes on "Sex and the City" has riled her compatriots since The New York Times Magazine published a profile wherein she was quoted as saying that for her, being gay was a conscious choice. Many other gay women tell similar stories, pushed into the gay lifestyle by emotional pain, trauma, and anger of men issues, frustration with the lack of intimacy with men, disillusionment from past/failed male relationships, and men’s greater prevalence to infidelity.
Nixon was also quoted as saying, "A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out”.
How very, very true. And here is the root laid bare, the Achilles heel of the gay movement for discrimination status: it MUST be seen as a choice, not because it is (or is not ), but to further a political agenda.
Yet homosexual activists can always be called upon to commit numerous logical fallacies in their arguments, primary of which is to cite the less than flattering heterosexual marriage statistics. This is both a non-sequitur and a red herring, however, I can chew on that bone.
If the statistics on straight marriage are unflattering, then the stats on homosexual fidelity and monogamy are positively dismal. But should this be surprising for a lifestyle that is primarily a hedonistic pursuit? In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, researcher M. Pollak found that,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
Hundreds. To anyone that knows homosexual males, this is not surprising at all, and the application of the term “monogamous” and "committed" to homosexual men is laughable. Anyway, Pollack echoed this sentiment:
“Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.”
In another survey conducted for Parade magazine , what was described as a “magnum order” of difference was found in the lifetime rate of infidelity among heterosexual couples as compared to the rate of infidelity among homosexual couples.
Researchers concluded that,
“even 'committed' homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage”.
Now the above would seem to be no-brainer to me, but it apparently is news to some.
The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by homosexual researchers.
The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.
- 100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.
- Greater than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on infidelity.
- Data from the Homosexual/Lesbian Consumer Online Census indicates that only 29% of homosexual/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years.
- Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So, in closing, the States are enumerated constitutionally with the rights to define marriage laws. No person is denied rights that others have, and if a person wishes to relocate to a State where expanded and additional rights pursuant to the choices of alternate lifestyles are protected by state law, then there is no law that says they cannot, just as there is no law that says one cannot move to another state where the marijuana laws are laxer. Obviously, the majority of the State Legislatures and voters, contrary to poll data, do not support gay marriage.
I am reminded of another phraseology from the homosexual camp: “I want to be treated like everyone else”.
Fine. Then ACT like everyone else.