ban on gay marriage

Californians voted to ban gay marriage in their state last Tuesday. Arizona and Florida did the same. The difference in California is that gay and lesbian rights activists are taking it to the streets in protest. They see the ban as taking away their civil rights. But does it?

The ban on gay marriage preserves the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage provides for some tax, heath insurance, hospital and parental rights. So the thinking is that if you eliminate the ability to get married, then you limit gay and lesbian rights.

But there seems to be another way that would provide gay and lesbian rights while not changing the definition of marriage. "Civil unions" could provide equal rights to gay and lesbian couples while avoiding the damaging effects of changing the definition of marriage.

If you begin to try to change the definition of marriage, you open Pandora's Box. Soon after changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, those who are in polygamist relationships will want to be included as well. They will soon demand that the definition of marriage should change to include multiple people . You can see where this goes.

Marriage is a holy union of one man and one woman. Humanity continually tries to corrupt this. It seems that the corruption of marriage began with husbands being abusive. The ease and normalcy of divorce was the next step in the degrading of marriage. The rampant use of pornography and various other forms of sexual addiction is a third corruption. And now the desire to wholly change the definition of marriage is the most recent attack. This will not be the end of the assault on marriage.

I believe that our gay and lesbian friends should have equal rights, but also that the definition of marriage should be protected. Civil unions seem to be the logical solution.