I have been disturbed by the recent efforts of gay Americans to redefine the word “marriage.” According to Webster’s (and a long, extended history in a vast array of cultures, including ancient Greek and Roman cultures where homosexuality was rampant alongside marriage…by the way, why didn’t the Greeks and Romans have this “marriage” definition crisis?), “marriage” is defined as, “…to join as husband and wife; unite in wedlock; to join a man to a woman as her husband or a woman to a man as his wife; to take as husband or wife...” I am not alone in my frustration. The majority of Americans like this definition and want it to hold. Even Barack Obama and Joe Biden agree with the traditional definition of marriage—the poster boy ticket for “change.” So this is obviously not merely a GOP issue, this is an American issue that includes all political persuasions.

Many Americans find it unsettling to even have to say “traditional” marriage to define what they are referring to. Since when did the definition of “marriage” become “traditional?” It used to simply be the definition. Now the definition needs defining. It is ludicrous.

While many gays argue that it isn’t about the word “marriage”, it’s about “rights,” I beg to differ. If it were merely about rights, they would be petitioning for those rights, not for the fundamental changing of a word. I would propose that it is—in fact—primarily an ideological issue. They want to play a game with semantics and dance around the issue, but I—along with many Americans—am not buying it. It is obvious that gays are really pushing for their lifestyle choices to be seen as identical to heterosexuals. They believe in their gut that if they can just change the definition of the word “marriage,” they will no longer feel different. This is not possible. They will always feel different, because they ARE different. This is not to be cruel, bigoted, or condescending, it is simply a fact. While gays advocate their "alternative lifestyle," they do not want to admit that it is exactly that, "alternative."

To use a completely non-controversial example, let’s liken gay union and heterosexual marriage, to margarine and butter. Some people like margarine better than butter, some people can't eat butter...but they don't say, "Let’s just call them BOTH butter! It's the same thing!" It isn't the same thing. One is an alternative to the other--it only makes logical sense that they be called different things. For an informed choice to be made, the options must be clearly labeled. This benefits both butter lovers and margarine aficionados.

The bottom line is this, gays want to force their views and lifestyles on all Americans and they do not want to be seen as any different from heterosexuals. But whether they eventually beat down the opposition and get their way and brainwash our children from a young age under the "protection" of the educational system, they will not be able to change the fact that they ARE different. They are engaging in a lifestyle that is not, and never will be, the same as that between a man and a woman. Even if the commitment is the same, the end result is not.

I do not believe that the majority of those who oppose gay “marriage” are opposed to gay rights and legal gay unions. They simply don’t want the word “marriage” changed and the confusion that will follow. They want to know that if they ask for butter, they will get butter, and if they ask for margarine, they will get margarine. Gays seem to vehemently advocate individuality and diversity—yet they desperately want to be the same as everyone else when it comes to the word “marriage.” They are creative, thoughtful people, why not come up with a new term to define their lifetime commitments? If they don’t like the term civil union, let’s scratch it. If they would just tell folks what they want their unions called, I am sure most Americans will gladly use the new term—but don’t mess with OUR term—the majority of Americans like “marriage” just how it is.



p.s. I realized there are many issues at stake here, I have simply written about the definition of the word...feel free to add to the discussion!

America married Barack Obama after a whirlwind courtship. We didn’t really know who this man was, but his tongue whispered such tender words of hope and change into our yearning ears, and he was just so unbearably gorgeous, that we couldn’t be bothered with the tough questions…we ignored his sundry and ethically problematic friends. There were rumors that he was not who he said he was, and concerns that he would lead us astray, but all our fears flew in the face of his all-glorious oratory. He told us not to be afraid, no matter what anyone said about him, and we listened. We shut our ears to all else but his precious intonations. We were mesmerized, enchanted, we felt righteous that we could elect this improbable candidate—this underdog. We would right all wrongs and injustices and show how colorblind we were by giving this man the highest seat in the land. We didn’t question his credentials, because when our worries rose like chime in our throats, we called those concerns racist and swallowed hard—we didn’t consider the arguments valid. In fact, we were not colorblind at all…

With the impetuous fire of youthful love, we followed our man to Vegas—to the little white chapel so we could sit with him in the little white house with the two kids and the new American dream. We brashly rented the limos and drank champagne, drunk on the wine of his promises. Such promises the world had never heard before! He was our man, our one and only, our new American hero with not a spot of blood on his sleeve. He was pure. He was our Solomon. He would end all war and meet our every need. He would provide for us. He promised…

But after the wine was drunk, and the honeymoon was over, what would be left? We had made history, but what kind of history would it prove to be? Some wondered, some questioned, but they were silenced—called shrill, judgmental, racist, bitter, clingers to God and guns, old-school, uneducated, unenlightened, greedy, biased, close-minded, non-progressive, fear mongers, opinionated…but they were not these things, they were just as patriotic as the rest of us, they simply had questions. They wanted to know who this man was—what all the pretty words added up to—was it a covering for his true intentions? Or had he really been re-born during his bid for our affections into a true patriot—a man challenged and made better by the effort of winning his Lady Love? They asked simple questions that deserved simple answers. Instead they got the angry, blinded backlash of youthful lovers, when reasoned wisdom questioned their choices.

Did we sell our futures to a sexy lover, or a dedicated and devoted—‘til death do us part’ kind of man? A man who would risk his life for us, stand up for us—or a man who would cave in the face of danger and sell us down the river into foreign waters…we didn’t ask the questions like we should have. We weren’t allowed to. Dissent was systematically eliminated and drowned out. And as a result, we didn’t get the answers we needed for a sober judgment. Let us hope that our blind lust did not deceive us.