To the editor:
I offer the following analogy in response to the presentations and panel discussion on marriage equality held at the SMSU campus on April 18 and published in the Independent on April 20.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, architect of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Decision said: "that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment."
Science completely validates the child in the womb as a person with it's own brain waves, heart beat fingerprints and of course, it's identifying DNA - all different from the parents. So why not just call them legal persons so they can be protected from having their little limbs pulled off and heads crushed? The issue is "IDENTITY," which would thereby give them constitutional protection; a "right to life."
The issue of a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex, also hinges on the "identity issue." I interpret the motive of those pushing "same sex marriage" as this: "We were born as homosexuals, we can do nothing to change it, therefore we must have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex; and some of us want to call it marriage, others of us do not want a marriage contract - but that doesn't matter, we insist that the traditional definition of marriage must be changed."
But in reality, how do you identify the "homosexual?" Research tells us there are no innate properties in our DNA that identify the homosexual. DNA will tell us your skin color, eye color, hair color, bone density, etc. But the only identifying characteristic we currently have for the homosexual is based solely on behavior, and this "behavior" can be completely reversed, as verified by narth.com, and "ex-homosexual" groups as like Exodus International, Courage Apostolate, PFOX and Ex-gaytruth.com. In other words there is no solid identifier to put into that "constitutional right" to a same sex marriage, it just floats in and out of existence. Add to this disoriented framework the Australian Human Rights Commission claim that there are 23 genders and we may need to redefine marriage to accommodate all 23. Using that criteria, why not man-boy marriage; and if a man loves his dog and the dog loves him, why not? You might say; but we have laws that can prevent this. Yes, but we had laws against abortion and sodomy, but that was changed due to pressure from activist groups. So laws can be changed for the better or for worse.
To fully understand the amazingly successful advancement of the homosexual agenda over the last 25 years, one needs to review the six steps in Kirk & Madsen's 1987 "Overhauling of Straight America' and it's 1989 follow up, "After the Ball" - essentially the "bible" of the homosexual movement. Page 153 says: "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." Among other things, the six steps deal with neutralizing "Joe Sixpack" and demonizing the religious right using the "bracket technique." In other words, the movement is not based on intellectual argument; only emotional manipulation of the public.
Consider that McWhirter and Mattison spent five years studying 156 male couples - 312 individuals - "in loving relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years" and not a single couple reported sexual fidelity lasting longer than five years. The U.S. Census Bureau says less than 0.6 percent of households are same-sex. Does it really make sense to change the definition of marriage in light of these statistics?
Apparently, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off the official list of psychiatric disorders. What was the scientific basis for that decision? I note that Rueda & Schwartz in "Gays, Aids and You" say this change was the result of pressure tactics and intimidation. Also, Herrell and others published papers in the Archives of General Psychiatry, showing homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidal tendencies, major depression, and anxiety disorder."
Please vote 'YES' in Nov. for a constitutional amendment and stand up for "The Good, the True, and the Beautiful" - the complementary union of a man and a woman in marriage producing future citizens.
Note also that if you leave the ballot blank, it counts as a 'NO' vote.