The gay marriage amendment, the proposed "ban" of homosexual literature, gay rights . . . no matter where you look these days, you can't seem to avoid the politicization of homosexuality. The fact that homosexual marriage's fate was put on the ballot this November undoubtedly favored Bush because values-voters showed up in droves.
Now, if only the liberals would stop their bellyaching and get over it.
You often hear the term "Religious Right," inferring that conservatives are a horde of Christians dead-set on making the Ten Commandments viewable in public schools and forcing their religion down your throat. Well, if right-wingers are religious, then I guess left-wingers aren't. We will, therefore, in the spirit of fairness, label the left as the "Luciferian Left" for this article. That sounds about right. Logically, since the right is so decidedly God-fearing, the left must not be.
Enough ribbing, though. I think we can all agree that the whole gay-marriage argument gets a little ridiculous at times, no? What with the name-calling and the absurd gnashing of teeth over simple semantics in the gay-marriage debate. There are a few reasons that contribute to the Religious Right's opposition to gay marriage. Two thousand years of Christian scholarship agrees that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. This is an opposition to the lifestyle, not the person. That being said, marriage is an entity of the church, not the state. Thus, the question people should be asking is: Why does the state recognize marriage?
The fact of the matter is that marriage is an entity that originated in the church and, by constitutional standards, should stay there. There is to be a separation of the church and the state, correct? It is my belief that our forefathers included this in the Bill of Rights for the church's sake, although the state benefits equally from it. Our country was founded by people seeking religious freedom.
As a result, Americans have the right to practice the religion of their choice without discrimination from the government. Since liberals and the American Civil Liberties Union seem hell-bent on squeezing the separation of church and state to death, why have they said nothing of this? Shouldn't the state only recognize some sort of "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" to its rightful owner, the church?
There's a profound and sad reality that underlies this question: The gay-marriage movement isn't solely about equal rights. It seems to be, like so many movements today, about infiltrating and perverting the church as well. It seems blatantly obvious that liberals are focusing their energies on redefining the church's standards under the guise of equality. If liberals were really concerned with gay rights, they would start by addressing the relationship between the state and the term "marriage." Instead they have embarked on an absurd crusade to steal marriage from the church.
To abide by the Constitution, gays should have civil unions with the same benefits that a marriage entails (we can't be a "free" society if they don't), but marriage is for the church to ordain. If the members of the Luciferian Left are going to push their own religion into politics, then they need to quit complaining when the members of the Religious Right vote according to theirs.
Tyler Wittman is a senior speech communication major. This is his first column for the Collegian.