Even Secularists Can Justify the Marriage Amendment

While I am a Christian, I realize that those who are not Christians are under no obligation to accept judgments based on my moral or religious sentiments. People of faith, as we call ourselves, must be prepared to make an argument based on a secular world view. Whether we think this is right or wrong is irrelevant; it is the current reality in which we exist. Can an argument be made for the marriage amendment strictly on a logical, secular basis? I believe it can. Consider these points.

Surely we can agree, the plumbing is different

First, why is it not in the best interest of the State to protect an institution that is based on the biological reality that only a man and a woman can create a life, a citizen of this nation, someone who will ultimately be either a law-abiding citizen or a law breaker, a contributor or a parasite? In what warped value system is that inconsequential? Apparently it is inconsequential in the warped value system where the slaughter of the unborn is called "choice." Our culture is teetering on the edge of insanity.

It's as old as civilization

Second, the marriage amendment is not about telling homosexuals that they cannot love, or bond, or cohabitate, or inherit each other's property. It is about protecting the purpose and essence of marriage, an institution that is as old as civilization. What arrogant presumption would mandate that the religious community must accept a cultural fad, a trendy and casual redefining of a fundamental human institution that dates back to tribal societies?

Freedom does not disqualify law

I would not consider imposing my views on consenting adults and in a free country such as ours, we accept that mutual freedom means we must be tolerant of non invasive behavior of other adults. Now clearly, in the past, tolerate did not necessarily mean condone or accept. It is difficult to escape the growing awareness that an Orwellian political correctness has encroached on our freedom to live by traditional values. Today, it is not enough to tolerate and peacefully coexist. Now we are expected to applaud and celebrate behavior that we find repugnant, rationalizations that we find absurd and a value system that is a dark moving target in a moral black hole.

A cult of license

Nevertheless, even in our culture, despite our commitment to individual liberty that arguably can be called a cult of license, most of us would not question the wisdom of protecting our children from sexual predators, or punishing rapists, or firing the office groper for that matter. We do impose limits on behavior that one could argue are based on the moral principle of "do unto others." As a society, even as we have plunged into the shadows of moral relativism, we still punish thieves and murderers; we prohibit polygamy, bestiality and spitting on the floor in restaurants. For mutual protection, for the sake of public health, for the good of society we justify a plethora of government sanctioned intrusiveness. Yet somehow, viewing traditional marriage as a foundational component of civilization is portrayed as myopic, homophobic bigotry.

Being the first isn't always wise

The fact that prior to our generation, no nation in the history of the human race has ever sanctioned civil marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman is lost in the diatribe and the venom. The fact that human culture has always recognized that propagation of the species and siring heirs was actually important is dismissed as at best quaint, and in fact a threat to personal liberty. Not even the hedonistic and lecherous Greeks and Romans had men marrying men and women marrying women, irrespective of how they dressed or what they called themselves. And please do not bore me with any nonsense about the development and evolution of our consciousness or other foolishness. Watch the nightly news and the emotional immaturity of our species is appallingly self evident.

Phobia Shmobia

It is hard not to resent the attacks of homosexual extremists and other secularists who characterize as homophobes or bigots those of us who believe that traditional marriage is an institution that is historically defined and integral to the propagation of our species and the cohesiveness of our society. Sure it offends my Christian sensibilities, but if you're not a Christian and you know I'm not going to target you for assassination, why should you care?

Some things are not negotiable

From your standpoint, the only thing you need to know is that marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a puppy, or a woman and her dead fiance (leave it to the French!) insults my intelligence. I will not suffer marriage to be redefined in my mind, in our culture, or for our posterity for the convenience of a vocal minority who clamor for the "freedom" to do as they please at the expense of denying the rest of us the right to live according to cultural traditions and religious convictions that are thousands of years old. Just who do these people think they are? This is non negotiable, and we will never, ever accept it.

Congress take note

If you are a member of Congress, you had better get this right, because we will not forget your lapse in judgment if you do not protect the institution of marriage. If you are reading this before June 6, 2006, contact your Senator and tell him or her to support the marriage amendment or prepare for early retirement.