This week the Senate is set to debate, and potentially vote on, the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a constitutional amendment proposed to codify the definition of marriage so it cannot be twisted or corrupted by any anti-marriage movement, be it homosexual, polygamist, or otherwise.  In its entirety, the amendment reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”  This is a simple, straightforward statement designed to inoculate the American judicial system from revisionist judges who buy into the homosexual agenda and ignore the will of most Americans.

People who come out in support of FMA are labeled homophobic bigots or some other nasty epithet.  This name calling, however, only reveals the fundamental flaw in the ultra-left, homosexual agenda: they have no other recourse except demonizing because their group has found judges willing to force their unpopular agenda on an unwilling population and now they must answer for their actions.  Do you think the same sort of “lay-down-and-take-it” attitude would be tolerated if we were to push a ban against interracial marriage?  Of course not, but because theirs is a politically correct agenda, we are simply supposed to allow it to occur without objection.  Reasonable Americans will simply not tolerate this aberration of the natural order, nor being forced to subscribe to its ideology

Part of the problem of gay and lesbian groups is that, like the liberals that support them, they’ve spent a large percentage of the past twenty years bashing the “establishment” in their heterophobic rage, to the point that they are incapable of seeing the underlying hypocrisy of their sudden desire for legal married status.  As part of their phobia of straight people, homosexuals created an entire, fictional belief system regarding why groups oppose gay marriage.  These are the myths that they insist you and I believe.  Myths they discount, attempting to show us that what we believe is foolish because, despite being mostly reasonable, it is an opinion different from their own.

I don’t know what other people believe about gay marriage, nor why they believe it.  My opposition stems from two very simple traditions, one biological and the other historical.  Biologically, reproduction only occurs as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman.  Historically, marriage was created to protect the genealogical lineage and simultaneously make societal bonds stronger.  If homosexuals somehow developed the capacity to naturally reproduce – that is, without scientists and doctors and laboratories – then we would be having a very different discussion.  The scientific fact is they lack the parts necessary to produce children.

Not that the homosexual lobby is without a reply to such a “homophobic” opinion.  One website demands to know, if reproduction is critical to marriage, why “infertile couples are allowed to marry.”  That’s what makes the logic of my position so simple.  It’s not based upon whether or not they produce children, merely whether or not it is possible.  It may be unlikely, but an infertile couple nonetheless has the parts necessary to create a child genetically identifiable as theirs.  The website’s author betrays his heterophobia when he writes, “I… would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings!”  Such an argument is so blatantly and hilariously foolish that it almost belies rational thought.  After all, if they are a “menopausal mother” or “impotent father” then they’ve already produced offspring!  They’ve fulfilled the definition of marriage held by most Americans.

Once they realize they’ve lost on biological grounds, the homosexual lobby switches to “proving” that there are gay relationships throughout nature, conveniently forgetting one important detail.  Even if there is, it is still not possible for homo sapiens to reproduce homosexually.  Whether or not other species are capable, it still makes little difference in the current debate and is a smokescreen designed to disguise the real issue.

When all else fails, the homosexual groups then borrow a page from the NAACP’s playbook: label the opposition as racist and insist that their civil rights are being denied.  They may try to insist that this is so, but what about the civil rights being denied to the other citizens when an agenda they didn’t vote for and didn’t have a say in is forced onto them?  Where is that fairness in a democracy where the will of the people is supposed to rule?  The gays and lesbians talk about how they are forced to testify again their lovers while husbands and wives hide behind a marriage clause, and they complain about how their wills are not honored or they aren’t permitted to make life and death decisions regarding their life partner’s health.  In these cases maybe they should be granted the legal protections granted to any other couple, but that’s not marriage.  Civil unions are a part of the answer, but only if they can be used by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals – and as of yet, the homosexual groups aren’t real keen on the idea.  Civil unions at least offer some of the legal protections afforded to couples.  In fairness those protections should be granted to homosexual couples since there is evidence suggesting that homosexual couples are at least as capable as their heterosexual counterparts to remain monogamous.

FMA responds to the agenda that is being forced onto the people by a tiny minority of the population.  While they may complain about being shut out or denied rights, it is their forcing their agenda on us that is partially to blame for the hesitation of the American people to support them.  They lack the patience to open a reasonable dialogue to get people to change their minds.  This group has used the courts to force their agenda on us all.  This is not the intended use of the judiciary, nor any of the Constitution’s amendments, and allowing the gay lobby to succeed leaves the door open for other groups to try to force their own agendas on the population.

FMA puts a stop to this agenda pushing.  The bottom line is FMA protects states from being forced to recognize, accept, or pass laws regarding gay marriage – even from states which have already had their judiciary cave into the homosexual lobby’s pressure.  It does not, however, prevent those states from passing provisions allowing it.  It returns to the states a right they should have had all along, simultaneously leaving a window of opportunity available for the states.  Most importantly, FMA protects a biological and historical tradition that has helped our civilization achieve its greatness and protects that tradition for all of our future generations.

| Main Page | Column Archive | Who Is Brian Clardy? | Files and Links | Feedback |

All written material on this website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.