Toronto

Same-sex “Marriage”: A Cataclysmic Proposal

Posted by on Jan 3rd, 2010 and filed under Opinion, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

By YOUSEF DRUMMOND

THE legal momentum for and against same-sex “marriage” here in the United States is quietly tearing away at the moral fabric of America’s society and is poised to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage on a global scale, one that is firmly rooted in centuries of religious tradition.  The traditional conception of marriage, one based on a firmly-rooted religious foundation, is the bedrock of human civilization and has served to transmit unshakable moral and ethical values among its inhabitants.  That same-sex “marriage” is now an “issue” or “debate” only points to a cataclysmic proposal that, if granted the force of law within all nation-states, will debase civilization’s moral standards still further.  Indeed, if same-sex “marriage” becomes a social reality for all societies around the globe, then all moral standards will collapse.

For hundreds of years now, unchecked capitalism is the main engine that renders all religious moral values null and void; it has guided the European idea of a “separation” of “Church and State”.  Now, gay-rights advocates are grasping the legal momentum for “marriage equality” and nation-states are all too eager to reap a financial wind-fall.  We must understand that the European legal tradition, to which other nation-states in the Middle East and elsewhere seek for guidance, prizes economic, not moral, considerations as the primary engine of social change.

Marriage is big business.   The aura of romantic bliss fades as soon as the future bride and groom consider the projected cost of the wedding bill:  the wedding ring, the tuxedos, the dresses; the wedding venue (usually a religious one), the photographers, the food, the cake; the invitations – well, you get the idea.  Consumers spend, and retailers relish the profits. The economy improves.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), consumer spending topped $3 trillion and constituted more than one-third of consumer spending here in the United States.

Same-sex “marriage” is big business, too.  We imagine homosexual couples experience the same economic travails consistent with wedding preparations as much as heterosexual couples do.  According to a May 2009 economic projection analysis conducted by the New York City Comptroller’s office, New York State’s economy could gain as much as $210 million within three years, providing that New York State legalize same-sex “marriage”.

If gay-rights advocates succeed, no longer will the traditional definition of marriage be a social necessity.  No longer will “marriage” be associated with religious elements, such as “the sacred relationship, in the Sight of God, between a man and a woman”.  The main core of marriage will then be based on legal and economic foundations alone. The religious dimension of marriage, a solid foundation that has guided civilizations for centuries, will then be ignored and thus receive little or no consideration.  The European Enlightenment philosophy of individual rights and liberties led its legislators to canonize a separation of Church and State.  One U.S. sociologist now propose that individual states no longer marry couples in the hope of ending the debate between “traditional” (i.e. religious) and “legal” marriages.

Nearly seven months ago I attended a wedding in a Pentecostal Church in Kingston, Jamaica, the West Indies.  Before the bride and groom said their “I-Dos” before the pastor and the congregation, significant church members escorted them into a tiny room, where both signed a legal, or civil, contract.  The contract informs the Jamaican government that both parties are now married and are entitled to all the legal and economic benefits granted to them and their children. Heterosexual couples here in the United States also sign legal contracts recognized by all 51 states in the Union.  New York State, like other states, does not recognize a marriage without a legal contract, even though religious authorities bind both parties in marriage.  A heterosexual married couple in New York State who decides to move to another state is still married.  They remain entitled to the legal and economic benefits granted by that state.  There is legal uniformity.

This legal uniformity, however, remains intact, at least for now.  In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or D.O.M.A., that exempts states from recognizing “same-sex marriages” performed in another state.  Opponents of gay rights within the U.S. Congress were so concerned that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage in every state was proposed in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Their collective efforts failed; the amendment failed to garner a two-thirds majority of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the legal benchmark for sending a federal constitutional amendment to the respective states for ratification.

Gay-rights advocates are now challenging this legal uniformity throughout many states of the Union.  Armed with financial capital, lobbying finesse and significant contributions from Hollywood elites, gay-rights advocates are persuading state legislators throughout the United States to legally recognize same-sex “marriage”.  Their political efforts are posting some positive results.  Six states in the Union now legalize same-sex “marriage”, including Massachusetts and Connecticut.  About a month ago the New York State Senate voted down an amendment to the state constitution legalizing same-sex “marriage”, sending many gay-rights advocates, including heterosexuals, into the streets of New York to air their concerns and bolster their determination to win their legal battle in New York within the near future. New Jersey’s state legislators are poised to vote on an amendment to the state constitution legalizing same-sex “marriage” soon.

The legal battle over legalizing same-sex “marriage” is won when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether homosexual couples have a constitutional right to do so, because then its decision will strike down all state laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” throughout the United States.    This legal battle is anchored to whether the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy.  The word “privacy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, but it does recognize certain rights relating to privacy.  The 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures”, while the 9th amendment declares there are rights “retained by the people” that do not explicitly appear in the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has made many rulings during this past century that has expanded privacy interests; in 1905 it struck down state laws denying employees the right to enter into employment arrangements on their terms [Lochner v. New York]; in 1965 it struck down state laws prohibiting the sale and use of birth-control, thus granting married couples the right to determine whether to have children or not [Griswold v. Connecticut]; in 1967 it banned state laws banning interracial marriage [Loving v. Virginia]; and in 1972 it struck down state laws prohibiting women from aborting fetuses, thereby declaring that the U.S. Constitution implicitly guarantees women the “right” to an abortion [Roe v. Wade].  Given these U.S. Supreme Courts’ legal rulings so far that now extend individual privacy interests – to employment relations, contraception, interracial marriage, and abortion -, expect the U.S. Supreme Court to entertain the constitutionality of “same-sex marriage” in the near future.

So why do homosexuals want to marry?  Why not settle for “civil unions”?  Besides, “civil unions” grant homosexuals the legal and economic guarantees traditionally granted to heterosexual couples.

Gay-rights advocates are now convinced that there is no social distinction between “traditional (religious)” marriage and “legal” marriage.  They are convinced that the ultimate force of law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, will ultimately enforce a new social meaning to the definition of marriage.  To buttress their position on marriage, gay-rights advocates now merge their political cause to win similar legal gains granted to African-Americans through the civil-rights movement.  Gay-rights advocates now say that they, like African-Americans before them, deserve expanded legal protections due their “disadvantaged social status”.  This legal strategy was proven to be successful in the past; however, there is no similarity between the gay-rights movement and the civil rights movement.  A black man has the right to marry a white woman, and vice-versa.  But does a mother have the right to marry her son, and vice-versa?  Does an uncle have the right to marry his niece, or a brother the right to marry his sister?  While these relationship scenarios are morally repugnant, even for those who are unbelievers who subscribe to the maxim “equality for all”, they are certainly within a rational realm of possibility, if gay-rights advocates continue to win legal battles that point to the social reality of same-sex “marriage”.

Reacting to foreign influences, some African countries are now considering laws banning same-sex “marriage”.  Uganda is now considering legislation that would mandate the death-penalty to active homosexuals in cases of same-sex rape or H.I.V., and friends would face up to seven years in prison if they fail to report them to the authorities.  Anyone convicted of a homosexual act will face life in prison, if convicted, and anyone with “religious, political, economic or social authority” would face three years in prison if they fail to report anyone violating the law.  David Bahati, a legislator sponsoring the bill, asserted that these strict measures were necessary to stop homosexuals from “recruiting” school-children. “The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America… A good number of students have been converted into gays.  We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youths into gay activities”.  Uganda’s ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, concedes that the death penalty clause should be considered but that the law serves to resist foreign influence.  “I feel that the law is good and necessary, but I don’t think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. Homosexuality “is not natural in Uganda”, he added. “The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling”, said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.  Nigeria is now considering strengthening penalties for activities deemed to promote homosexuality; the practice is now punishable by imprisonment or death.  Burundi recently banned “same-sex relationships” and Rwanda is considering it.

Same-sex “marriage” is not a “debate”, nor is it an “issue”.  Stand tall for moral decency by considering the cataclysmic moral consequences associated with “same-sex marriage”.  Resist the rising tide of global moral degeneration by paying close attention to this growing issue and register your disapproval with this “same-sex marriage” proposal through political might and social action.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be reached at:  drummondhugh@verizon.net

Leave a Reply

Log in | Designed, Developed and Hosted by: BIZIBIZI INC.