Opinion by Pestis Veritas

Hello all, I would like to discuss a major issue within the Republican Party. While the Republican Party has long been the Party of limited government intrusion, they find themselves at times being hypocritical of their own philosophy.One such instance is the discussion of same-sex marriage, and the lack of freedom that it imposes upon the citizenry, laying the foundation for future limitations of liberty. We as Republicans should look no further than an amendment to the Constitution that we as a Party authored and passed to ensure that all personages within the United States would be treated as equals in the eyes of the Law. The following text was retrieved from a Heritage Foundation copy of the United States Constitution, and is the first section of the 14th Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”I would like to draw attention to the last sentence: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Now, what does this mean in regards to same-sex marriage? Some might argue that there is nothing to compare this to within the court history of the United States, but, they would be in error. In 1967, the case of Loving V. Virginia sets the foundation upon which the current court case is set. A white man, married a black woman, which at the time, was a felony in many states of the Union, however, the Supreme Court struck this down as unconstitutional and set the stage for future expansions of liberty. Why? Because it violated the 14th Amendment. For those old enough to remember, this was a very heated argument, and caused many emotional grief. The full text of the court case can be read here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

So, why bring this case into it? Well, the arguments that span over 100 years are basically the same for interracial marriage as they are for same-sex marriage.

Scott v. Georgia “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate […]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.”

Senator James Doolittle (D) “By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

Scott V. Sanford “Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral.”
Now, we see many of these same arguments popping up in regards to same-sex marriage. What is the difference? The arguments are the same. “it defies the sanctity of marriage” “It is immoral” “the children grow up warped” “it is not a stable household” If you do not believe me, then go read some of the history for yourselves.

Let us address these points individually, as far as the sanctity of marriage goes, Politifact calculates that 50% of all marriages will end in divorce. Now, I am not sure what you were taught in your church, or by your parents, but I was taught as far as the religious sanctity of marriage goes, that this was the most serious of vows, short of accepting salvation or the sacrament. It was something intended to be life long, and unbroken, a vow that is so amazing and so vibrant that we should honor it under pain of death and hellfire. Of course there were exceptions for abuse and infidelity, and that divorcing partners should be shamed, but, we find that half of marriages end in divorce. Marriage is no longer sanctified, it is a purely governmental contract. The 50% that stay together “til death do us part” are the ones taking it seriously, however just as many do not. I would recommend that if using this argument against same-sex marriage, one should first advocate for tighter and tougher restrictions on divorce, requiring a lengthy and expensive court process, more-so than the current one, and judges should actually deny most divorces. Then, once those laws have been passed, raise the standard against same-sex marriage. As of right now, with the states that do allow for same-sex marriage, the current divorce rate hovers around an astonishing high of 2%.

As for the children, people argue that children deserve to grow up in a stable home with two parents. This of course does not provide any fair benefit to single parents, whether they be male or female in raising their child(ren). In fact, we can see that in many circumstances where a spouse has passed away at a young age, leaving behind the other spouse to care for the progeny, that, the majority are successful in raising even tempered good citizens that grow up to be married and have children of their own. Of course there will be outliers in this, but the overwhelming majority are successful, so how does this argument take into account the single parents raising good citizens? Would it not be better for a child to be raised by two parents regardless of gender and sexual orientation? There are many psychological studies that have shown children raised by same sex parents have higher IQ scores, they are more psychologically well adjusted, resolve conflicts easier, and tend to do better in all aspects of life. The most recent study was conducted by the University of Melbourne.

As for the morality of the situation, I will again point you to the arguments used against interracial couples. How many are happily married now, with good children, contributing to society, and are not out raising cane? How many of these interracial couples exist within our own party?

As for the definition of marriage, we can see that different religions and belief systems have a different idea as to what marriage is, some believe it is pre-arranged by parents for the purposes of procreation, some believe it is about a loving commitment between you, your spouse, and god, others have a looser definition. As far as legality goes, and the law of the United States, marriage is a binding contract used for allocation of resources, tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, medical decision making power etc.. Sure, same-sex couples can get all these benefits, but it requires a separate document for each item, assuming the state that they are in permits it, or it could all be taken care of the Republican way, with one document signing a commitment and contract, and giving all those benefits at the same time. One of the stories that changed my mind about same sex-marriage involved a gay couple out west. These two individuals were in what would be considered to be a normal, loving, committed relationship. When one of them tragically passed away, the other was not only barred from knowing anything about his partners death, he was barred from the funeral, grave site, and anything to do with him, because of the family’s stance on homosexuality. Now if you will, but yourself in his shoes. You are happily committed to the woman of your dreams, married even, and she suddenly dies. You are not allowed to know the cause of death, nor attend her funeral. You aren’t even allowed to bring clothes to the funeral home for her to wear, or pick out the casket or gravesite. I know when I thought about this, and what would happen if this were my wife, and I were in this situation, I would be driven mad with grief. If I wouldn’t want that to happen to my wife and I, what is to say that I would wish that on someone else, just because their belief system is different than mine.

Finally, I would like to note some fiscally conservative points. The average homosexual individual earns around $61,500 a year, and has $4,000 less debt than the rest of Americans, which is around $50,054. They also had larger savings accounts, and only have an unemployment rate of 7% versus the higher rate for the average American of around 8%. They are also more likely to have a college degree, pay taxes, and use their disposable income on luxury items. So, if we quit the nonsense with same-sex marriage, and truly be the party of Freedom and Equality as we were founded, then we see financial benefits as well through taxation. More weddings means more money spent on them, which means more jobs for wedding planners, florists, flower farmers, etc.. it just trickles down the line. This would be a nice increase in our economy, not to mention the home purchases and construction on homes for newly formed families. There is more to this that is good than there is to the negative. The LGBT buying power as of 2013 is estimated to be $830 Billion….with a B.

Regardless of our personal feelings on homosexuality, we cannot translate that over in to governance, we cannot allow our mind to become so clouded that we cannot see the forest though the trees. But the problem is, a minimum of 20% of Americans are homosexual, possibly more if we include bisexuals and those individuals still struggling with who they are. It is not our job to pass judgment on others when our legal system says we cannot. Let us also not forget that the greatest judge once told us: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” We have bigger problems to conquer at this juncture, like $17 Trillion of national debt, and an economy on the verge of collapse. Let the gays marry, and lets focus on tackling bigger issues that affect us all, and not nit pick on social issues that really don’t amount to anything in these trying economic times.

Sincerely,
Pestis Veritas