Shyzer.com

No, this isn’t me coming back just yet. That will probably be happening after I get back to school in mid August. While I’ve been away, there have been some things that I have been foaming at the mouth to talk about and I can’t hold back anymore.

As I am sure all of you know by now, earlier the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas earlier this summer, which has finally put some attention on homosexual marriages. Earlier this month, I stumbled across this little piece of work…

Americans must preserve institution of marriage
By Rick Santorum
The majority of Supreme Court justices may not be willing to admit it, but everyone else seems eager to acknowledge that the greatest near-term consequence of the Lawrence v. Texas anti-sodomy ruling could be the legalization of homosexual marriage. Although the court’s majority opinion attempts to distance the ruling from the marriage debate, the dissenting justices say, “Do not believe it.” Major Web sites such as America Online’s home page, as well as newspapers and TV commentators, have signaled that the decision puts the gay-marriage debate in high gear. The Washington Post’s front page trumpeted, “A debate on marriage, and more, now looms.” And Newsweek’s July 7 cover asks: “Is Gay Marriage Next?”

Before, the right to privacy in sexual matters was limited primarily to married couples. Now the court in its sweeping decision expanded constitutional privacy protection to consensual acts of sodomy, striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states.

The court’s majority opinion telegraphed unmistakably its position on the question of homosexual marriage. It listed “personal decisions relating to marriage” among the areas in which homosexuals “may seek autonomy,” just as heterosexuals may.

The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, noted: “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

After the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expressed concern over the court’s encroaching upon Americans’ right to protect the family and joined the majority of Americans in backing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. I also would support a constitutional amendment to affirm traditional marriage.

In fact, I believe that Congress has an obligation to take action to defend the legal status of marriage before the Supreme Court or individual state supreme courts take away the public’s ability to act. Every civilization since the beginning of man has recognized the need for marriage. This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason — it is the institution that ensures the society’s future through the upbringing of children. Furthermore, it’s just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

There is an ocean of empirical data showing that the union between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society. Moreover, traditional family breakdown is the single biggest social problem in America today. In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty.

Marriage has already been weakened. The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, while the divorce rate remains unacceptably high. Legalization of gay marriage would further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?

The last thing we should do is destroy the special legal status of marriage. But galvanized by the Supreme Court victory, proponents of removing that status are out in force. Ruth Harlow, lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Texas case, said, “The ruling makes it much harder for society to continue banning gay marriages.”

That is where we are today, thanks to the Texas ruling. But the majority of Americans will have the final say in the battle to preserve the institution of marriage.

I hope elected leaders will rally behind the effort to defend the legal status of marriage from a non-elected group of justices, and I urge you to join those elected leaders in this vital case.

Rick Santorum is a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

Yes folks, this is an actual United States Senator speaking here. I literally don’t even know where to start. So let’s just look at his first idiotic point. Santorum argues that “it’s just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” Well hell, it’s common sense to do a lot of things, but we don’t have constitutional amendments enforcing them. Santorum claims the “out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level.” Well good! If the parents don’t want the child, let them put up those children for adoption, let the gay couple adopt them, and we can work together to make sure these children have a good home to grow up in.

Santorum keeps bringing up the breakdown of marriages leading to the breakdown of families, yet he fails to even once begin to link how homosexual marriages will lead to traditional marriages falling apart. Furthermore, he fails to show any proof that a majority of homosexual marriages will end up in failure and help speed the “decline” of society due to failed familes.

It’s people like Santorum and the Senate’s majority leader, Bill Frist, who are finding ways to encourage the attitudes that keep homophobia alive and well in this country. Frist, said the court’s decision threatens to make our homes places where “criminal activity … would in some way be condoned.” I see: Open the door to consensual sex between gays, and all kinds of hell will break loose in America’s bedrooms — you know, polygamy, bigamy, prostitution, incest, hell, who knows what else?

These homophobes want a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples from being able to have the same rights and privileges that straight women and men can by the simple act of a marriage contract. However, there is no way any of these conservatives could argue against the fact that this would insert religion into the Constitution, because their objection to gay unions comes straight from the document the religious right relies on: the Bible.

Like it or not, the USA is firmly rooted in the principle of separation of church and state — despite recent attempts to blur that distinction. A constitutional amendment would profoundly alter that founding intention. While I want to believe that the proposed amendment is unlikely to become law, the mere fact that such a movement is afoot is alarming. Its archaic language would further institutionalize discrimination against gays. (Not that it isn’t done already: Thirty-seven states, including good ole’ South Carolina, have “defense of marriage acts” limiting marriage contracts to persons of the opposite sex and banning recognition of same-sex marriages, even if legal elsewhere.)

As for the argument that sanctioning gay unions will undermine “traditional” marriages: how? Marriages between men and women will get along just fine, with children, infidelity and divorce intact. Those opposed to gays marrying ignore that marriage is, in the state’s eyes, a civil contract, not a religious one. Let’s keep religion out of this, just as our forefathers kept it out of the Constitution.

Without legal marriages, gays are denied shared property arrangements, adoption rights in many states, joint insurance and bank accounts, inheritance rights and more. Perhaps the most poignant example of what the lack of such a contract confers happens in a hospital corridor. Any floor nurse who thinks like Frist and friends has the authority to arbitrarily deny anyone the right to visit a partner who’s seriously ill because she or he is not “family.”

The scientific evidence now indicates that homosexuality is hard-wired into men and women, meaning it isn’t some curable disease and that neither therapy nor prayer can change that. In other words, God in his infinite wisdom made some of us gay, some of us straight. If people like Santorum and Frist begin to gain support and ultimately win their ways, I will strongly consider raising my family elsewhere. My child will not grow up in such a close minded society.