published Friday, May 11th, 2012

Embrace the truth about marriage

Homosexuality is not a societal issue that just became of note in the last four decades.

History, including the Judeo-Christian Bible, records the practice of same-sex relations thousands of years before Christ.

Now, however, some want to equate one’s sexual partner preference to the civil rights movement, the fight so courageously fought for more than 100 years. In an attempt to curry political favor by framing the narrative around one’s personal choice of a partner to equate with the suffering experienced by generations of black Americans, the fight of truly persecuted individuals is diluted and their history distorted.

In the same effort to make homosexuality acceptable in society, politicians have joined the gay rights community in an effort to redefine marriage.

Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union between a man and a woman. State governments have codified the contractual relationship, and many have constitutions that have been or will be amended to further protect that definition.

While it is absolutely wrong to discriminate against any individual for their sexual preference, their race, their gender, etc., the choice of a sexual partner does not equate with a civil right, nor should a foundation of society be redefined.

The argument for access of same-sex partners to benefits, visiting rights and other domestic issues of property can be settled simply in a legal contract and a power of attorney.

If students at UTC, Chattanooga State and all the local schools began taking the forks during lunchtime in the cafeteria to comb their hair rather than using the utensils as designed, there would likely be a question as to the need to do so. It would be recognized that perfectly acceptable instruments, combs and brushes, already exist to achieve the goal of groomed hair.

President Barack Obama now has voiced his support for same-sex marriage in an election year that sees his approval ratings dipping and his economic record not fulfilling the promises he made while attacking former President Bush’s dealings with the same economy, now four years ago.

The Chicago Sun-Times chronicles Barack Obama’s evolution on this issue:

• In a written, signed statement in 1996, state Senate candidate Barack Obama declared, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

• In 2003, U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton and supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

• The U.S. Senate candidate in September 2004 noted his Christian faith in defining marriage “between a man and a woman,” yet he expanded his support of “civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.”

• In Obama’s presidential campaign of 2007, his call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act was in direct conflict with his statements just a few years earlier.

Reject attempts to rewrite history to identify sexual preferences with the civil rights movement.

Reject attempts to redefine marriage to accomplish a goal that can be achieved in a legal contract.

Reject the lip-service and pandering in election years.

Embrace the truth.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

You know what history has? Slavery. Superstition. Racism. Crusades. Inquisitions. You know how long ago miscegenation laws were being defended by the same arguments? Not so long ago.

As long as the state gives married couples special rights and privileges that cannot be obtained any other way, then you know what? The state can't be picking and choosing based on non-objective terms whose marriages are ok.

But your analogy about forks and combs? What, are you going to make it a law to ban people from using their forks in that way? Would you enshrine the use of forks under the sanctity of law?


Then why make up such a nonsensical argument? I guess you'll never get how ridiculous you sound.

May 11, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

"Now, however, some want to equate one’s sexual partner preference to the civil rights movement, the fight so courageously fought for more than 100 years."

Yeah, and the FP was on the side of the oppressors for many, many years in that fight. They can run from their history of supporting bigotry (for example, how many years did they list white and "colored" obituaries separately?) but they cannot hide from it.

BTW, if the idiot student sitting next to me used his fork to comb his hair, so what? I don't care as long it's not my fork he is using. I would reflect on his lack of home training and go about my business, a concept that escapes the FP leadership and has for years.

May 11, 2012 at 1:09 a.m.
EaTn said...

This issue will be decided in the courts, not the ballot box.

May 11, 2012 at 5:41 a.m.
joneses said...

Have you people noticed the attention the commie liberal news media is giving obastard for his flip flopping on gay marriage? The commie liberal news media is trying to present this as a great revelation form obastard and that this issue is on everyones mind. I am around hundreds of people everyday of different races, political beliefs, genders and sexual orientations and not one person has mentioned obastard announcing his stance on gay marriage. There are only two reasons why obastard and the commie news media are bringing so much attention to this issue, (1) Obastard wants the gay vote. This is stupid because the gays will vote for obastard regardless of what he believes as they are being used just as the most blacks are for political purposes. (2) To take away from all of obastards failures which is everything he has done as obastard is a complete failure. This is the real reason for all this attention to gay marriage. I wonder how many gays are unemployed because of obastards failed policies? This gay topic impacts a very small percentage of the population but obastard's failed policies impact all of us. It is that stupid of a topic. Politicians have not the ability to define marriage only God can. But I can see how you liberals think your politicians can define of gay marriage because you actually worship your dummycratic, liberal, commie politicians as gods and obastard as your Messiah. You are that misled.

May 11, 2012 at 6:18 a.m.

Of course there is no civil rights issue here. Separate but equal worked just fine in the last century.

May 11, 2012 at 6:45 a.m.
joneses said...


"Obama nets $15 million at gala Clooney fundraiser"

I wonder if these one per center obastard supporters that support obastard raising taxes on them will deduct from their taxes this 15 million dollars of donations to avoid paying taxes?

Another fine example of liberal/dummycrat hypocrisy.

May 11, 2012 at 6:49 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Exactly what “truth” about marriage does this editor think we're supposed to embrace? If you believe in a Bible-based marriage then God apparently thought that incest, harems, etc. were the way to go. You Christians might think this is a cynical view but it's all in your “Good Book,” folks. You can't make this stuff up:

May 11, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses, your comments are unintelligent and ignorant. And "God" does not define marriage. Marriage was around for centuries before Christianity was even an idea.

Whoever wrote this editorial is a bigot. In 40 years when same-sex marriage is legal across the country, I sincerely hope that the people who opposed it are still alive to see how patently absurd and hateful their beliefs are. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as anyone. How can you justify anything contrary to that?

May 11, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.

God has nothing to do with the legal rights and privileges that married people enjoy.

Notice how people go to courts for enforcement, not God.

May 11, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
Downtownman said...

I honestly dont know how Joneses finds the time to post comments. you would think taking sheep to be sacrificed, stoning adulterers,and throwing rocks at the moon would fill up his day

May 11, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.

Actually, this post makes me think you're just a sockpuppet.

May 11, 2012 at 6:10 p.m.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Do you really think anybody else believes somebody honest would side with joneses?

I just wonder if you're all paid to make conservatives look bad. Surely the Romney campaign would screen the quality of their paid shills.

May 11, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Should the children of gay couples be raised out of wedlock or should their parents be allowed to marry?

That question is a real test of our values.

May 12, 2012 at 1:32 a.m.
dabbscr said...

Hey libs, why don't we legalize pot, meth, cocaine, drinking and driving, texting and driving, and anything else the "Courts" have decided is illegal. I think if gay and lesbian unions are to exist, it should be up to the voters in each state. Majority rules. We are no more pushing our religious views on you than you are wanting us to accept seeing men marry men and women marry men. We are so protective over our children now days and so many laws to protect them, but hey lets confuse them as to why they have 2 dad's or 2 mom's when they have friends who have 1 dad and 1 mom.

May 12, 2012 at 6:25 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

JAHCHILD, I've got a better analogy. 35 years ago a mouse was defined as a rodent. Now the definition has expanded to include a Human Interface Device (HID) of a computer.

May 12, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

As far as I know, the Constitution (with all those pesky Amendments), not the Bible, is the governing document of this country. Name one nonreligious reason that can be used in a secular court of law to deny marriage equality. No slippery slope syndrome such as : marriage equality will lead to marriage with an amimal (when Bessie-The-Cow can sign a legal document, call Ripley's Believe It Or Not), an immediate family member ( legal next of kin status already established), or a child (legal age of consent already established). Polygamy is a separarte issue. If polygamists want to spend the time, effort, and money to challenge the laws against polgamy, that is their right under the Constitution. Being gay is a choice: irrelevant to the issue. Someone's chosen religious beliefs have no more validity under the Constitution than my (supposedly) chosen orientation or choice in my partner. Forcing churches to marry gay and lesbian couples : the separation of church and state works on both sides of this issue. As far as I know no one has successfully sued the Catholic church to force them to marry divorced couples or non-Catholics. "You can marry someone of the opposite sex." : discriminates on the basis of one of the couples gender (illegal).So, banning marriage equality goes against the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Full Faith And Credibility Clause, and federal laws against discrimination based on gender.

May 12, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.

Dabbscr, in regards pot legalization, there is substantial support for that. Why? Because the justifications four criminalizing do not add up. The other things do have objective criteria for why and your attempt to use them as an analogy shows the lack of discernment present in your argument.

And yes, the objections are primarily religious, Mitt Romney conveyed it today.

But no, the majority does not rule supreme over the minority, it does have limits. For good reason, and you are demonstrating it.

May 12, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

To those of you,like dabbscr, advocating that same-sex marriage should be a statewide issue and left up to the majority in each state, I have two words for you: CIVIL RIGHTS. Yes, this is a civil rights issue and not a majority-rules issue. If you still want to cling to the antiquated, unsubstantiated and easily disproven theory that gay people "choose" their lifestyle and are not genetically predisposed to it, well, there is no accounting for your prejudice and your stupidity. We can only hope that your hate and blindness will be overcome by the swelling tide of people who recognize the obvious: That gay people do not live in "sin" any more than heterosexuals do, and they should have every right accorded to them that every other American has.

We are living in a time of radical change in our culture. Just becase we have been complacent to live with certain paradigms such as marriage between one man and one woman, it doesn't make it wrong to broaden our scope and see that marriage can and will have to become something more than what we have traditionally defined it. You can either go with the flow and embrace it or else drown in the waves of change that are inevitable.

May 12, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Homosexuality is not genetic. It's gestational.

Also, quoting scripture gets you nowhere. We are not a country based on religious sectarian law. You are welcome to follow religious laws, but not deny others basic freedoms based on those laws.

May 12, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

I'm waiting for a RATIONAL NONRELIGIOUS reason. (Not holding my breath on this one.)

May 12, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hey, I'd settle for an irrational nonreligious reason.

May 12, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.

Irrational, but nonreligious reason? Ok, I can do that.

If men can marry other men, and get all the benefits, they'll realize how much nicer it is not having women around, and that will be the end of the species since reproduction will start.

Really, what would a guy rather do, hang with his bros, or try to make nice to an unpleasable woman?

Especially with the advances the Japanese are making with RealDolls.


May 12, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

So, having legal recognition of gay and lesbian monogamous relationships will somehow raise HIV transmission rates? That's the clearest case of bass ackwards thinking I've ever seen. BTW, lesbians have the lowest HIV infection rates on the planet. You have one of the biggest cases of cranial-rectal inversion I've ever had the misfortune of encountering.

May 13, 2012 at 5:42 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

If you love homosexual individuals Mr. Orr you would not use misleading information to justify denying them their right to equal protection under law. The HIV/Aids epidemic entered the US through the gay male population in the 70's but the biggest infection rate is in straight sexual activity. Marriage (should) encourage monogamy and faithfulness, although from the failure rate in hetereosexual marriages that is hard to believe. Monogamous relationships pose less risk of disease transmission. Of course, your invoking the name of Jesus indicates that your disapproval is religious, not secular.

May 13, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your repeating this doesn't make it any more valid.

May 13, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

lkeithlu said... Your repeating this doesn't make it any more valid

Or being anything other than a false equivalency. Standing ovation!

May 13, 2012 at 9:05 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Just in case "them are fancy words",a false equivalency is also called "comparing apples to oranges."

May 13, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.

While in the US, homosexual relationships had more AIDS infections, the opposite is true in other populations.

That in the US, the vector was homosexual is incidental, not intrinsic.

Sorry, but it's non-religious, but untrue.

May 14, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

@@ & face-palm.

May 14, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.