In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.
- Rick Santorum, 4.7.03
I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to another. I saw so much love. When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same-sex couples were looking for.
- Maryland state Del. Wade Kach (R), 2.23.12
Allow me to introduce Jeff Heine, who represents what some define as perhaps the greatest threat to America’s moral fibre- members of the GLBT community who want to have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (St. Paul, MN), Jeff and I shared a house while we were students at Macalester College. Jeff is gay; I’m not…and it didn’t (and still doesn’t matter). He’s a great guy who was a fantastic roommate; I’m not so sure the same could have been said about me, but a lot of water’s passed under that bridge. So why isn’t he able to enjoy the same rights and benefits that are available to me?
Take a good look at Jeff. If you see a threat to the future of this country, you really ought to consider seeking professional help. Jeff’s is no more a threat to…well, anything…than you or me. He has dreams, hopes, worries, friends, and family…just like you and I do. He puts his pants on the same way we do, worries about his job just as we do, and hates Mondays every bit as much as we do. What he can’t do is enjoy the freedom to make a lifetime commitment to someone he loves that confers upon him the same rights and benefits that married heterosexuals take for granted.
And this is because Jeff is a threat to the institution of marriage? Really? If you’re marriage is placed under undue stress because Jeff wants to be able to marry, your marriage is in worse shape than you’re willing to admit.
I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.”
An increasing number of states have voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. In so doing, they’ve made discrimination against a minority class a matter of law. In some states, most recently North Carolina, voters have elected to enshrine discrimination in their constitution. Nice work, eh?
Minnesota, where I grew up, is the latest state to hold the rights of a minority class up to a popular vote. The proposed Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment is on the ballot on November 6th, and it appears that supporters are trotting out the same old arguments that have been used in other states to deny equal rights to the GLBT community.
The debate in Minnesota has devolved into an argument over the title of the amendment as it will appear on the ballot, either the current version:
“Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples,” or what the amendment’s supporters would prefer:
“Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman.”
I’m curious what those who support the amendment feel are the “threats” that marriage needs to be protected from? And why do so many think it reasonable and appropriate for the state of Minnesota to legally define the only “acceptable” form of committed relationships. It’s not as if heterosexuals have done such a bang-up job of respecting the sanctity of marriage….
There’s a very simple solution available to those self-righteous sorts who support enshrining discrimination in Minnesota’s constitution: don’t marry someone of the same gender. Problem solved, eh? For my next trick, I’ll be taking on the Arab-Israeli conflict….
If you still see Jeff as a threat, might I suggest that you take a few moments and get over yourself? Jeff doesn’t want to rule the world. He’s not trying to recruit your children. And he’s not trying to force the Homosexual Agenda down our throats (no pun intended). All he wants is to have the same right to formalize a lifelong commitment to someone he loves, just as any heterosexual couple can…and what’s so dangerous or subversive about love and commitment?
Since when are stable, long-term relationships not in the best interests of all of us? Why shouldn’t we be celebrating those who choose to make that commitment, regardless of their orientation? It’s about people pursuing happiness…and what’s so bad, wrong, or immoral about that?
If you see Jeff as a threat to America’s moral fiber and the institution of marriage, take a good look around. When a heterosexual marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce, I have to ask: what’s the REAL threat to marriage?
It’s not Jeff.
