Hijacking Marriage for Societal Homosexual Acceptance

I wrote the following commentary in March 2005 in response to a trial judges decision overturning the vote by the people in 2000 to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I am reprinting it here in its entirety because of it's relevance to Prop 8 which, should it pass, will de-legitimize a California Supreme Court ruling allowing for gays to marry. I support Prop 8 for a different reason than I oppose gay marriage. Prop 8 is a good thing for this county, because non-Californians can marry in California and have those marriages be deemed legitimate in other states.As a result, the gay lobby will surely seek to spread court-induced acceptance of gay marriage to every state and that is simply unacceptable to me.

Hijacking Marriage for Societal Homosexual Acceptance
By Kevin D. Korenthal
MichNews.com
Mar 16, 2005

When San Francisco trial judge Richard Kramer said in his March 14, 2005 ruling that it is unconstitutional for California to have a law banning gay marriage, he was framing the issue as one of civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right and even if it was, no one person is being denied marriage. Indeed homosexuals are still free to marry persons of the opposite sex.

One only has to look at what California law has offered to gay couples in place of gay marriage to see that the rights and privileges given to married couples is not their main motivation for their activism. In California, Civil Unions provide rights and protections to gay couples that were previously reserved for those that legally marry. The only real right refused is the right to use the term "marriage" to legally describe the relationship. So why are the liberal judges and gay activists resisting Civil Unions? What Judge Kramer and the gay lobbyists really want from the legalization of gay marriage is the credibility that the term marriage offers to those that are homosexual.

In gathering quotes from both sides of the issue, it becomes clear that both sides agree on one thing. If gay marriage is defeated in California, it will be difficult for the Gay Lobby to move forward elsewhere in the country. By the same token, a win in CA will bolster efforts to undo anti-gay marriage legislation in any state where it exists. Attorney Bill Lockyer (who personally supports homosexual marriage) believes the issue should be decided by the voters, not the courts. "The more appropriate way to enact a change in policy that's this basic is to go to the people," Lockyer said, speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C. "This issue probably will wind up before the people in one way or another eventually." So the question now is will the vote turn out like it did 5 years ago when California passed a definition of marriage in the law.

In a National CBS News/New York Times Poll taken at the end of February, a full 2/3 of respondents said they preferred Civil Unions (34%) or no legal recognition (41%) for gay couples over redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Nearly 23% of those who voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election said they did so based on a set of moral principles that did not include gay marriage. Indeed, the MSM has pointed out Karl Rove's masterful plan to get anti-gay marriage initiatives on as many ballots as possible as being one reason President Bush won the election with a clear majority.

The Gay Lobby has used the court system to advance their cause for this very reason. Most Americans reject a redefinition of marriage and if given the chance to vote on it, will defeat it every time. "The gay community constantly beats the drum of, 'We will get gay marriage through the Legislature or the courts.' They're not going to the people because they know they will never get it at the ballot box," said Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, a church-based group that is spearheading efforts to get such an amendment voted on in California. "The public is wholeheartedly against this concept." But that is exactly where groups like the TVA want to wage this war and if recent history is any lesson, the activists on the right will prevail in their endeavor to make that happen.

Comments

john r said:

homosexuals in the past centuries have been abandoned by family and friends, rejected by society includingthe church, and subject to possible assault, incarceration and even murder.

that was because it was deemed illegal. upon receiving legality they have become entitled to all rights and privileges entitled to heterosexuals. otherwise you have the same situation, after emancipation proclamation, where a group is given freedom but is withheld rights, because they are deemed substandard.

what is substandard about homosexuality. they bond in the same spirit as heterosexuals. they boond out of mutual love, respect, trust,devotion, affection, and attraction for a shared committedlife together.

homosexuals have never been found to be wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are less a friend, attorney, administrator, neighbor, father,counselor, brother, soldier, pastor,etc

and it is made obvious that procreation is not the most important thing by homosexual committed couples providing loving nurturing homes for raising children, equal to those of married heterosexual couples and by their offering those homes for adoption of rejected and abandoned children from heterosexual unions.

September 9, 2008 6:34 AM

Kevin D. Korenthal said:

JOHN R:

Homosexuals have come along way in society (except for say Muslin Societies which just as soon hang as look at a homosexual).

But hijacking the institution called marriage is going too far and we must fight against you. Through time immortal, marriage has been defined one way as one thing. Marriage is not just a word and it can not be redefined to make it some thing that it is not.

I personally support giving homosexual couples all of the legal and financial benefits (and detractions) but REFUSE to stand-by while unelected judges call that type of union a "marriage".

So I am not against you or your right to settle down with the one you love, but the slippery slope that the redefinition of marriage puts us on will be devastating for this society and must be stopped. And we are going to stop it my friend.

I will add also, commenting on your last point, that children need A MOTHER and A FATHER to grow up balanced and stable. Now of course one or the other of these 2 elements are missing from many children's lives such as in divorce. But that does not mean we should mainstream yet another method by which children end up being raised without either a mother or a father.

September 9, 2008 11:40 AM

Anonymous said:

Kevin K., is it really just the word "marriage" that you're stuck on? It's interesting that you support giving same-sex couples all of the legal rights/protections/responsibilities of marriage but you are adamantly against calling it "marriage". Your stance lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of positions on the issue. I am honestly intrigued by your position because it all seems to boil down to semantics. I also don't think you're alone in your feelings. I'm curious... if, hypothetically, society was to create some new word to describe the legal relationship between partners of the same sex. And that word was then inserted after an ampersand (&) in every single federal and state law in existence that contained the word "marriage", would you be okay with that? I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here. This is an honest question. I'd be interested in reading a response from you (or another reader who shares your views).

September 9, 2008 7:44 PM

MrBrownstone said:

Why are we even worried about this issue? we should be worried about jobs--because after this landslide election, we'll all be looking for one.

September 10, 2008 2:49 PM