Don't call it marriage

One of the bright spots in the recent election was the rejection of same-sex marriage in three states, most notably California. Voters there amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Immediately gay activists marched in protest and threatened to appeal it to the courts, which they now have. To be sure there will be an effort to repeal it in the next election.
Knowing the pattern of California courts, it’s a safe bet to say that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn it, only to have the Supreme Court overturn the Ninth Circuit Court. Remember, you read it here first.
Personally -- and I’m only speaking for myself here – I think if homosexuals want “equality” they need to define their domestic relationships in terms other than “marriage.” What they want is not marriage. They want a legal sanctioning of their domestic relationships.
Marriage involves the union of a man and a woman as the base for a family and the procreation of the species. Gay relationships do none of those things. That’s not to say that there cannot be loving and nurturing gay homes.
A gay relationship can be nothing more than two people of the same gender living together. It cannot by itself produce offspring nor continue a family line. Such unions are unnatural and perverse. Even if you keep religious objections out of it, living creatures were simply not designed for same gender intimacy. We’re not built with the right parts to function that way.
Alas, I am straying from my point. Marriage has a very specific design and purpose – a purpose that is not met by people of the same gender. It is a spiritual, holy and sanctified relationship that goes much deeper than the legal definition.
While I oppose same-sex unions for biblical purposes, I can see and understand the point gay advocates make on behalf of wanting equality and the same rights as heterosexuals. This is America and as Americans they should have the right to live their lives as they wish, no matter how repulsive it is. They should have all the legal trappings of a formal relationship that men and women do. But don’t call it marriage.
Don’t put it on the same level as marriage, which is at the core of a family. The family is the building block of all society. If you diminish marriage and family, you rip the very fabric of society.
If gay people are so adamant about being “married,” then let them pow-wow with the lawyers and come up with a new term and definition for what they want. Let them come up with their own ceremony, their own traditions and their own form of a legal relationship.
What they want should be set apart from what is, because it is not the same. There is also the issue of forcing employers to provide benefits to same-sex partners. That’s touchy because it does border on discrimination, but it also violates an employer’s freedom of religion to force him to provide it.
It’s my opinion that benefits are not a Constitutional right and an employer should not be made by the government to provide them if the employer doesn’t want to. At the very least there should be a religious exemption for an employer to claim in refusing to hire or insure homosexuals, especially for churches and other ministry organizations where such relationships violate core beliefs.On a final note, those who say rewriting a state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman is building discrimination into law, I disagree. It is not discrimination, but protection of something very sacred and important to who we are as a people. To violate that sanctity would be an act of discrimination.