It is not marriage if genders are the same

The battle for gay rights hit Texas hard last week when Dallas-area State District Court Judge Tena Callahan declared that the state’s ban against gay marriage was unconstitutional when she ruled that a gay couple married in another state had the right to divorce here.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the judge. I am adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Personally – and I’m only speaking for myself here, not the newspaper or our parent company – 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 perversion.
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, however, is 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 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 that note, I feel the state’s laws dictating that marriage is between one man and one woman is Constitutional and does not build discrimination into the law. 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.

That’s not how I would have done it
I have a feeling the Rev. Clarence Talley’s From the Pulpit column had a record number of readers last week. I’m sure it will again this week.
Last week he confessed to an affair in his column – one that had the approval of his family. This week he names his mistress (spoiler alert – stop here if you haven’t read it yet on Page 6A). His affair is with wisdom. He feminized it after the writings of King Solomon from the Old Testament. Solomon is considered the wisest man to ever live. I can’t say the same for the Rev. Talley.
I fully understand what he was doing in his sensational way. But if my initial reaction was mirrored by his readers, there are more than a few people out there who think he was talking about an affair with a real woman. He put his reputation on the line in a cleaver rouse – not something a truly wise person would do.
But to each his own. I’m sure he is getting his point across and to a much larger audience than he would normally have had. Kudos to him for that.
(Note: Part of this column previously appeared in the Herford Brand last year.)