What is Marriage and Who Should Judge Others for Living Their Lives?

Historically, society has always known that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Do you remember as a child, chanting the verse: "K-I-S-S-I-N-G, first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage", with your friends in elementary school? The original theme of marriage is deeply-rooted inside nature itself because nature requires a sexual union between a male and a female for reproduction of offspring in most cases. This is what continues to expand the human race and, thus, I feel that marriage is more than just a loving relationship with another person. Promoting the development and creation of the human race is something that homosexuals simply can not do. In turn they turn to adoption or in-vetro fertilization or simply decide not to have children.

Here in Oregon we have voted on measures like measure 36 attempting to define (legally) a marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It is not entirely about marriage, but is also about Constitutional change and the ramifications it may bring. Regardless, if one views the measure as right or wrong, major consequences would follow if measure 36 failed or won for that matter.

Oppositionists for measure 36 petitioned for support for a "NO" vote to change the Constitutional laws of marriage. Currently, Oregon recognizes all marriages if they were legal and valid in the state the marriage took place in.

If measure 36 failed, Constitutional changes would open the door for same sex marriages, but I can't help to think it would open other avenues of marriage such as bi-sexual, transsexual and polygamy marriages. The failure of measure 36 may have also resulted in marriages between father and daughter, mother and son, and other interfamily marriages that are, so far, illegal. I feel these types of marriages are immoral but would they fight for their rights as well?.

Furthermore, voting yes on measure 36 preserved marriage as a union between one man and one woman and does not discriminate or prevent same sex couples to live together in union. There are no laws prohibiting same sex couples to share a relationship or live together. Relationships are individual decisions and sexual preference should not be a public policy.

Residing together before marriage is a sin in the eyes of many religions as is a sin according to the words of God, but most people do it anyway. We all interpret the Bible in our own ways according to our own reasoning. There are people using quotes from the Bible for this measure and I feel this is unjustified and wrong. Who is to say what is right or wrong? Who are we to judge one another? If there is a god then we will be judged on our judgment day, but if you are a good person and live according to the bibles definitions of how we are to live our lives does that mean we shall go to hell for they way we choose to love someone? Who is to say? Not I, nor was I put on this earth to judge others.

In Hadley Arkes' essay, "The Closet Straight", he states "marriage is more than a private contract; it is "the highest public recognition of our personal integrity". Arkes further states "...natural theleology of the body to the recognition that only two people, no more, no fewer, can generate children. To that understanding of a union, or marriage, the alliance of two men would offer such an implausible want of resemblance that it would appear almost as a mocking burlesque." He goes on to say that the "mockery notion" would be evaded if the definition of marriage was broadened, but this could lead to an "equal protection problem" amongst consenting adults who wish to marry. Arkes' view is shared by many and his statements further establish that avenues would be exploited for other kinds of marriage.

Moreover, a narrative essay titled "Homophobia: An Unfinished Story", by Jay Budziszewski, the rhetoric brings to light a gay student's issues with the way people portray same-sex couples and their loving relationships. Budziszewski, an educator in Texas, questions what is "loving" about ones self-destruction (in a homosexual relationship) and further inquires how a sexual relationship between a father-daughter would be categorized as "deeper" friendship.

Moreover, Budziszewski asks, "Tell me what's so loving about sex that causes bleeding, choking, disease and pain". Budziszewski then asks his subject to provide an explanation of medial terms such as Gay Bowel Syndrome and inquires how people get herpes on their tonsils". Budziszewski also wrote "The Seeker," another essay illustrating a young man questioning his own homosexual development and how his relationships never last; he wishes to be called "Dad" from his would-be offspring that he knows is not possible in his same-sex relationships. Using insight by Budziszewski's subject, we must ponder whether or not the Oregon divorce rate might become higher or would it become lower?. What would become of children in these broken relationships?

Additionally, the Oregon voters' pamphlet listed 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon Families if you voted "YES" on measure 36. While reading the oppositionists sides, I noticed a pattern began to emerge from the list. For example, number 10 and 11 were the same wording and state "Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children." This at first seemed to be a typo error, but the more I read, the more I noticed that these100 claims were replicated all throughout the list! To me, this was an immediate discredit to the opposing side.

Furthermore, is there really a need to change our Constitutional laws what clauses maybe added? They state they cannot protect loved ones in an emergency. I contest that they can if they enact a living will. .Furthermore, they feel they are not entitled to joint home loans shared with their partners. However, any two people can sign for a home loan regardless of sexual preference. They try to play on emotions and not for the truth. Homosexuals face the same legalities as heterosexuals. In fact, anyone in a legal heterosexual marriage faces the possibility of having a will contested by someone else and, therefore, the gay advocates can not fall back on this lame excuse. John M Hubbell, Staff Writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, explains that a heterosexual man sued the state workers' compensation fund because he and his children were denied the benefits they were to receive as a result of his wife's death. So, it seems there is bias in this Constitutional amendment for marriage issue.

In closing, I do not discriminate against same sex couples and it does not take away their right as American citizens to love and be with whom ever they choose because legal and financial benefits should not determine a person's sexual preference. I have a few friends and family members whom are gay and they live productive happy lives together. When time began, a marriage union between a man and a woman was a ceremony done before each other or women were traded for livestock, or an agreement between fathers. It was common law marriage. There was no paper certificates and it was just known that family was a family. In the 1400's people with money could have a portrait painted and was used as a marriage certificate, but what did the common people do? This is something I will have to research further for my own mind, but in the mean time I will continue to love, care and have compassion for all.

Arkes, Hadley. "The Closet Straight." Faigley and Jack Selzer. Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. Second Ed. NY. Pearson Publication, Inc 2004. 405,407.

Budziszewski, Jay. " Homophobia: An Unfinished Story." "The Seeker." Faigley and Jack Selzer. Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. Second Ed. NY. . Pearson Publication, Inc 2004. 417, 421

OregonState Election Division. Voters' Pamphlet volume 1 - state measures. OR. 92, 93.