Gay Marriage: An Assault on Society
By Senator Brent Hill
Prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic. Labels used to demonize those who defend marriage as a solemn and sacred union between a man and a woman. In an effort to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, the gay community has focused the debate on victimization and discrimination.
It is not discrimination at all. Supporters of the traditional family need not feel guilty for promoting the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Two years ago, Senator Curt McKenzie and I presented a resolution to the Idaho Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman be recognized by the State of Idaho. Although Idaho statute already contains such a provision, activist courts across the country have been declaring such laws “unconstitutional.” Mere legislation has proved to be of little avail against the forces of activism within the courts. Only a constitutional amendment can protect Idaho from having to recognize same-sex marriages. The chairman of the Senate State Affairs Committee refused to give the bill a hearing.
Again last year, the resolution overwhelmingly passed the House, but was held hostage by the same chairman. With Senator Don Burtenshaw as the new chairman in the Senate, we expect to pass legislation this session to place a constitutional amendment for a vote before the citizens of Idaho to protect the sanctity of marriage and family in our state.
I am sometimes asked, “What difference does it make? If two gay people want to get married, how does that hurt me?” Accommodating same-sex marriage will transform our culture by replacing the traditional family as the cornerstone of society with an amorphous legal arrangement. The gay marriage movement isn’t really about gay marriage at all. Same-sex couples already exist and with a little inconvenience can arrange for themselves most of the “rights” afforded marriage. The gay marriage debate is about legitimizing homosexual behavior.
The push for “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” as a kind of second-level marriage is merely an attempt to gain the rights and conveniences of marriage without the responsibility and commitment. Providing for civil unions is not an acceptable compromise.
There is a reason traditional marriages and families are afforded certain rights and privileges within society. Heterosexual marriage is important to society because the family is essential to the propagation of civilization. Married couples receive benefits because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. Weaken or eliminate the traditional family and its functions will necessarily be transferred to the state: to state day-care centers, health care, welfare bureaucracies, and governmental agencies.
We must be civil, kind and loving to all people, but we need not provide privileges, exemptions or subsidies to those institutions that seek to replace the traditional family. If homosexual marriage becomes a legally recognized institution in this country—and it is entirely possible that it will—it will only be because we became cowards in the name of compassion; a culture grown too weak to defend its own existence. It is up to us to sustain, and in all good conscience defend, our commitment to the family.
