|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
New Jersey Family Policy Council PO Box 6011 Parsippany, NJ 07054 P: 800-653-7204 F: 888-453-6346 Click Here to Contact Us |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
Opinion Editorial: Federal
Marriage Amendment Preserves Lawful Definition of Marriage
The Viewpoint article (Federal marriage amendment would make Constitution discriminatory 5/29/04), is based on flawed premises and misinterpretations of the intent of our Constitution. The author, a teacher of American history and government, should understand that our U.S. Constitution already contains “discriminatory” provisions that are there for the common good. The Constitution discriminates against young adults running for office (“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years”), senators are further discriminated against (minimum age 30, and 9 years a citizen), and people who have not yet been (“seven Years a citizen of the United States”) cannot run for public office, and are thereby discriminated against. The Constitution also gives Congress the authority to establish the rules for naturalization (Article 1, sect. 8) and therefore Congress could lawfully set similar limits for marriage in the Constitution. Although the Constitution grants to all “equal protection of the laws”, it does not place individual freedoms above the common good of society. The overall intent of our Constitution is set forth in the preamble, which declares that one of the six main reasons it was established was to “promote the general Welfare”. Paying taxes and being an American does not entitle anyone the radical individual freedom of engaging in any behavior, independent of any shared moral or community standard with public sanction and state protection. For example, current marriage law discriminates to protect society from the fallout of polygamy, underage marriage, and incestuous marriage, because the government has a compelling interest to promote and reward behavior that is conducive to societal order and well-being. Likewise, the government has reason to be discriminating about homosexual behavior. First, because of the detrimental health effects of same-sex relations: the extraordinarily high frequency of diseases like anal cancer (4000x higher than general pop.1 ), gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B (carrier rate is 20 to 50 x higher than general pop.2 ), hepatitis C, and other deadly viral infections like AIDS (1000x more likely than general pop.3). Other STD’s, like Syphilis, can be found in heterosexuals, but are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and a study at an Australian STD clinic found that they were 3 to 4 times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were HIV positive4 . Secondly, the government has reason to discriminate because the purpose of marriage is to protect children – not individual sexual preferences. If same-sex unions become legal, schools will begin mandating sex-ed instruction on unhealthy sodomy practices and place these high-risk practices on equal footing with heterosexual sex. Research has already shown that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to be confused about their own sexual identity, more likely to engage in homosexual relationships and more likely to be promiscuous5 . Last but not least the writer of the 5/29 article, equates the push for legalizing same-sex unions to rightfully giving blacks civil rights like voting and marrying another race. Race is an immutable characteristic – unlike homosexuality, as evidenced by lack of scientific evidence and the testimony of the many former homosexuals who now live happy heterosexual lives. What activists are seeking and what the author proposes is a redefinition of marriage. But where would the redefinition end? Should polygamists and even pedophiles be given these same “equal rights”? If not, on what basis would they be denied? The federal marriage amendment that President Bush is supporting, would not unlawfully discriminate, but rather would preserve the lawful definition of marriage for the good of all society. Due to homosexual activists challenging our laws across the country, and activist judges re-inventing law without the consent of the governed, a Constitutional amendment is now the most sure way to preserve marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
James Madison, the “chief architect of our Constitution”, the Bill of Rights, and our fourth president said this, about the relationship between religion and civil government: He said plainly, “Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government”. 1 “Correlates
of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14,
9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, as cited in http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm. |
|
