KarMel Scholarship 2004
|
“Freedom to Love” By
Rocky Desciption of
Submission: “A
personal opinion essay about my views against the FMA and the general stigma
against the gay culture.” – Rocky |
Carolyn Musgrave
first introduced the Federal Marriage
Amendment (FMA) to the government on
The words “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all” rolled off all of our lips at one time or another in our
lives. But what exactly does that mean for us?
The
Bush administration stood for individual freedom, and claimed that the
Democrats take your money and decide for you. But shortly after that speech,
did he come out with the FMA. Supporters of the FMA claim that marriage should
only be between a man and a woman only because it’s “natural.” But is owning a gun “natural”? Then there are many studies out
there that show that homosexuality is more natural than people think. Others
claim that even with the ban on gay marriage, states can still move to give gay
couples benefits, thru civil unions. But the states can already do, for
example,
But, there are others who also say that marriage is a religious institution. Well, if marriage does have its roots in the church, why didn’t it stay in the church? Why don’t the churches deal with the term “marriage” and not the government? If this is the case, the government should have no play with the term marriage, and should look to just providing benefits instead. This government was not found on one religion, and it especially was not Christianity. The first three presidents were deists. Not one of them had any Protestant values that dominated their way of running the country.
But benefits remains to be a large factor in all of this. One of the main reasons that allowing for gays to be federally recognized as “married” is that once they do, they gain the same 1000+ laws that apply to existing federally recognized couples. States, too, have their own laws for couples. Such laws provide an immense amount of security and support for the family. Such laws that gay couples are looking to have are laws that allow a same-sex person become a parent for your child, allow a same-sex partner to see his/her partner in the hospital, allow you to get tax breaks, etc. A main reason I would like to look at is estate acquisition. I cannot tell you the amount of stories I’ve heard about peoples whose partners passed away, and instead of gaining their partner’s estate and money, the family of the deceased acquires it. Thus, the existing partner gets the burden of paying off all the debt of the deceased, and does not have the financial help of the estate to help pay it off. All the money that they thought was theirs was not. But the money that is left owed to third parties, remain as debt to them. Marriage laws would have helped them acquire the money that was rightfully theirs to help pay off the debt.
Some people support the FMA not because of any of the above reasons, but mainly because of the sexuality of it all. Some people are just plainly disgusted by the term “gay” or “homosexual.” Most believe that being gay is not a natural lifestyle. A new study came out about homosexuality between penguins. The study showed that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, and as humans, being in the animal kingdom too, it should be natural for us also. Many gay people have tried to convert themselves to “the straight lifestyle” and though they might say that they have succeeded and tried to get married, some ended up divorcing again, being sad for a long time, or even, ending their own lives. Many have tried looking to God, having sex with the opposite gender to just try, getting married, living alone, and the list just goes on. As a gay person myself, I would answer the question “Is being gay a choice?” with this sentence: “If I had a chance to choose, I would choose the simpler path.” Does one become gay because he/she simply wants to be gay? Not many people in their right mind would choose a harder lifestyle for his or herself if it were within his/her own power. Not many people would intentionally become poor. Not many people, in their sane minds, would ever choose a harder lifestyle.
The government is involved with making decisions based on the “liberty and equality” of the people. And if anyone who took a government class knows that the government must keep in mind the powerless minority, which is the main reason why we have the Senate, so the small states could have equal power as the bigger states. And making a decision is supposed to help the society, and not hurt it. How does allowing gay people to marry hurt someone? If the two men next door get married, how does that affect the way you get to work on time, have your child do well in school, the way you eat and drink, the way you breathe, the way you live your life? A public good is defined as a good that if consumed by one, it does not affect the ability of another to consume it. How does allowing gay people to marry affect the way you get federally recognized? A civil union, in that respect, is a public good.
There are some people who would like to say that marriage between same-sex couples should not be allowed because then they would create a family – an unhealthy family. Many argue that all children need a motherly figure. But what do you have to say to all the single fathers out there? There are many single fathers out there who raise their child or children with little trouble. And if one can do it, why not two? And double the love? The only thing a child needs in order to grow as a person, is not just a mother, not just a father, but love. And if two gay people are willing to go all the way to adopt a child, are willing to defy social “norms” to adopt a child, they apparently are very willing to raise a lovable child. A scenario in this topic comes up often. An adoption agency gets two couples who want to adopt the same child. One of the couples is gay, and the other is straight. The gay couple, together, have an annual income of over $150,000. Both partners have no criminal record, never been accused of drug possession, stealing, or any other crime. They want to adopt the young girl that they both feel they both can provide a loving and comfortable household. Both of the partners have only been with one other person (dating). The other couple, have an annual household income of $65,000, but have a huge debt with the car company, creditors, the government for federal fines, etc. The father has been in prison once for drug possession and has been accused of spousal abuse. The husband does not want to adopt a child, but the wife does because she wants someone to love and cherish at home while her husband is away at work, but both partners are ready to adopt because they have made a private agreement, which they would not share with the agency. The wife has been in two marriages and divorces, and the husband has a restraining order for one of his past relationships. Which couple does the agency go with?
This is not to say that the roles can be reversed. What if the gay couple had a bad history of drug possession and the straight couple had the clean record? Naturally, you go for the one you think the child would have a better life in. With financial stability and an obvious case of cleanliness in the home and with love, this is the kind of environment it takes to foster a loving child. Granted, the above conditions may be exaggerated, but it is there to show you that gay couples can offer as great of a home as any other couple. Putting sexuality aside, one must play on a level field.
Gay
people are normal people. You encounter them everyday. You meet them in the
line waiting for the bus, they serve you at your favorite restaurant, they are
the district manager at the retail chain you work at, they sit next to you in
class, they eat the same things, wear the same things,
and clean themselves the same way as you do. They love things you love, eating,
going out with friends, watching movies, crocheting, horseback riding, sports,
anything. Their abilities range from athletic, like Jackie Robinson, to entertaining,
like Elton John, to corporate
Why keep a normal institution away from normal people? Regardless of who you may be, we were all offered a chance at life. We all came into this world the same way, and we will all exit the same way. So why can we not live the same way?