Civil Unions and Gay Marriage.

Q. How does gay marriage affect your marriage?

A. You should first have asked me whether or not gay marriage actually affects my marriage. Instead, you presumed to answer that question for me by assuming that I think gay marriage affects my marriage. Also, you weren't really clear about what you meant by "your marriage".
I believe that my heterosexual relationship with my wife would not be affected at all by granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

My civil marriage is the legal relationship that I have to my wife and it constitutes a government endorsement of my heterosexual relationship and government endorsement of my commitment to the obligations of a lifelong husband/father role. Through such an endorsement the government acknowledges that my legal commitment to a heterosexual relationship promotes or does not unacceptably impede the ideals and objectives of its governance. Among these ideals and objectives is the subjugation of citizens to the rule of law and keeping of the peace through socially orderly conduct. These ideals are more effectively adhered to and perpetuated in nuclear family relationships bonded by heterosexual marriage. By allowing heterosexual marriage and prohibiting same-sex civil unions of any sort, the government is subscribing to this political philosophy.


Q. So, you are saying that your marriage means less or is worth less if gay people get married?

A. I am saying that my heterosexual relationship with my wife would be unaffected.
I am also saying that the legal relationship that I have to her would be trivialized and the underlying moral principles that our legal agreement promotes would be fundamentally undermined generally. The public acceptance and government endorsement of fundamental moral abandonment would impede the peace, order, and general welfare our country, of which my wife and I are citizens. This impact would unavoidably affect our lives, liberties, happiness and quality of life in general.


Q. Is homosexuality a choice or are you born with it?

A. Same sex attraction is probably learned by some people and is possibly an unlearned inclination in others. Homosexual acts or lifestyles are voluntary responses to those inclinations, whether learned or innate.


Q. You think that same-sex attraction is learned, but I don't remember choosing to be homosexual. When did you choose to be straight?

A. Although I think it is impertinent whether homosexual attraction is learned or innate, I am willing to suppose that homosexual attraction could be innate in some people. Whether your homosexual attraction was learned or innate, I would not expect you to remember a defining moment when you decided that your feelings were morally acceptable. One thing seems certain though; you are choosing this very day to continue accepting them.

I don't remember deciding that I was going to be attracted to the opposite sex. I don't remember ever having feelings of homosexual attraction, so I think that my heterosexual attraction is innate. Whether it is learned or innate, I choose how to conduct myself. For example, my wife and I were attracted to each other before marriage, but we chose not to engage in ANY sexual behavior of any kind until after marriage. We would have been celibate until death if we hadn't wed. It was a choice we had made and a completely voluntary lifestyle. We also made a decision to be completely faithful to each other in marriage and we choose every day to keep that commitment. Everyone has the ability to dictate how they will respond to their sexual inclinations.


Q. Why should people that feel same-sex attraction be denied the sexual satisfaction that heterosexual couples enjoy?

A. You are actually making at least four assertions in this question. First, you imply that heterosexual couples are generally sexually satisfied. Second, you imply that homosexual acts bring about the same sexual satisfaction as heterosexual acts. Third, you imply that heterosexual people never feel or have never felt same-sex attraction. Fourth, you imply that people who feel or have felt homosexual attraction are not able to be sexually satisfied by a heterosexual relationship. Those are assertions for which I have not seen any credible, non-anecdotal evidence, nor do I think it is possible to conduct a non-biased study to confirm those assertions. I think that your assertions can't have any solid backing so the question doesn't have much meaning.


Q. What about marriage for transgender or transsexual persons?

A. If I had to write a very rough draft version of legislation on the matter the summary would be as follows:

For you to be qualified to marry a person that was born genetically and anatomically female, you must have been born genetically and anatomically male. For you to be qualified to marry a person that was born genetically and anatomically male, you must have been born genetically and anatomically female.

Sex identification is mandatory on birth certificates. Falsification or omission of this information is punishable with fines and imprisonment. The invalid birth certificate is nullified. A corrected certificate is reissued.


Q. Gay people can have the same inter-partner love that straight partners have, so why not let them get married? The fidelity of some gays to each other is greater than that of their straight counterparts.

A. I disagree with your assertion that gay love is identical to heterosexual love. You can no more prove that they are identical than I can prove that they are different because there isn't any adequate way for anyone to make a valid comparison. You feel one way about it and I feel differently.

I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex because their chosen lifestyle is not worthy of government endorsement. This is true whether or not some heterosexual marriages are desecrated by infidelity.


Q. With current divorce rates, straight people have ruined any sanctity of marriage if any such thing ever existed.

A. Sanctity (i.e. holiness) goes beyond politics and into the realm of religion which overwhelmingly declares homosexual relations to be unholy. That through divorce many people have forfeited any sanctity of their personal individual marriage, does not ruin the sanctity of the religious concept of marriage.

You have, however, touched on an important point. Divorce rates are embarrassingly high. This is a huge problem and if this doesn't change, the consequences to our society will become more and more dire.


Q. The government shouldn't have any say about marriage at all. They shouldn't decide who can and can't get married. It's a social relationship, not a civil relationship.

A. The government should have the right to refuse endorsement of certain lifestyles and acts. This includes marriage endorsements. As far as the government is involved marriage is a civil relationship.


Q. Attempts at an amendment to the U.S. Constitution were unsuccessful. Doesn't that mean that the population doesn't oppose gay marriage?

A. If that were the case, do you think that populous states like California and Florida would have introduced amendments to their constitutions. That populous states passed state amendments indicates that the people decided that marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. After all, marriage requires a state license rather than a federal license.


Q. You are hateful.

A. I disagree.


Q. You are trying to push your religious views on others. The government shouldn't get involved in moral issues. You are an intolerant homophobe.

A . If you think that the government should not get involved in moral issues, then you should have been protesting against the judges that decided, seemingly out of the blue, to get the government involved in the issue by trying to force several state governments to make the moral decision of favorable acknowledgment of homosexual relationships.

You are supporting a cause that tried to force the anti-religious views of a minority on a representative government that has a very large religious constituency. If you feel like you're being pushed, it is the natural feeling you get when pushing on a wall that refuses to budge (see Newton's third law of motion). You're complaining that the wall is pushing you. I'm not being pushy. I'm just unwilling to budge in the direction that you are pushing.

Put away your label-maker. Please tolerate my right to disagree with you. The self-proclaimed and self-appointed advocates of tolerance are generally hypocritically intolerant of any voice of dissent. The first amendment right to free speech applies just as much to me as it does to you. I neither hate, nor fear you.


Q. Marriage is just a word. Why are you so upset by using it to define homosexual relationships also?

A. If it's just a word then why would so many people be so adamant about having it redefined? No honest, intelligent proponent of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions would argue that their ambition is to redefine our vocabulary or dictionaries. They are looking for much more substantive change than that. The word itself is not the substance of the debate, but by having a functional legal definition for it there is a platform for the more substantive political debates involving the relationship that word represents and other relationships that differ from it.


Q. If you are opposed to using the word "marriage" to define a same-sex union, why not let homosexual unions enter into same-sex civil union contracts?

A. Because the word used is not important, nor is it the substance of the issue at hand. The government is not currently obligated to endorse homosexual relationships, nor should it be obligated especially while the majority of its people disapprove of homosexual marriage.


Q. Should homosexual partners be allowed some rights that are currently available only to married persons? For example, hospital visiting rights, etc?

A. Homosexuality should not be the entitling qualification for any rights.
I don't have an objection to homosexual partners making legal decisions for their partners if power of attorney has been granted. Power of attorney , however, should not be implied based upon homosexual partner living arrangements.

There are basic human rights that I believe people (heterosexual or not) are entitled to as detailed in our federal constitution and respective state constitutions. Extending additional rights to a homosexual on the basis of his/her homosexual preference constitutes an endorsement, which is not justifiable.

There are problems with the current medical privacy laws that need revisited by legislators. I mention this because I have had to act on behalf of my own wife in obtaining medical services for her during her pregnancies. Filling out the privacy paperwork with her was required to secure rights to access her medical records and doctors. It took time, which in an emergency situation could have had terrible consequences.

It was a hassle and introduced unnecessary paperwork. Doctors, nurses, and medical insurance companies wouldn't even talk to me unless they knew that all of the hoops had been jumped through. I am her husband and I still had to navigate an obstacle course of paperwork to be with her and help her. This needs revisited.