Gay Marriage and the Myth of "Rights"

As the son of a Purple Heart paratrooper and a member in a long line of U.S. Army veterans, I have been taught to appreciate our rights and freedoms more than most. I understand the cost of these benefits, and have the utmost level of respect for those who sacrifice to give them to the world.

Three things agitate me: 1. those unwilling to do what is necessary to secure the blessings of liberty; 2. those who disrespect both our soldiers and our democratic processes; and 3. those who invent rights to advance their political agenda.

No single group of people is guilty of violating #3 more often than the political left of this country. Just yesterday, I heard a gay marriage advocate say that he "just wants the rights guaranteed to everyone else."

Well, guess what? I have some great news. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country. You see, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. I do not recall seeing a fundamental right to marriage in the Bill of Rights. If it were somewhere in that wonderful text, then the government would have to provide losers like myself with a bride. Instead, you have to go through a process, and if you qualify (and only then) you are granted a marriage license.

Government is not in the business of love. It does not grant benefits to married couples because it is just so happy that Ross and Rachael finally got together. That is the role of religion, the source of marriage in the first place. Instead, the government encourages marriage for a few different reasons. I will briefly discuss the two most important:

1. To encourage population growth. The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that it will have soldiers and scientists to keep it competitive on the global scene. This seems overly simplistic, but consider the panic in Europe in regards to rapidly shrinking populations. If you don't buy the soldiers/scientists theory, then you will agree that more babies = more tax payers, and more tax payers = funded entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc.), many of which are unfunded now.(Here is a great article from The Economist - in case you don't believe me. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1923383)

2. To combat crime and poverty rates and ensure the well-being of the newest generation. Several major studies have shown that children with married parents do better in every measure of well-being than their counterparts with different living situation. Therefore, the government once again has a compelling interest in encouraging marriage. (http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm)

Uncle Sam views marriage as a mutually beneficial business deal. It has nothing to do with love or fuzzy warm feelings, and it is certainly not a guaranteed right. There are tangible benefits to promoting matrimony, and unfortunately homosexuals can not reciprocate government benefits.

I have heard the argument that if we do not allow gays to marry because of these factors, then old or sterile couples should not be given the privilege of marriage benefits. We call this, "grasping at straws." The fact of the matter is that these couples can still form the unit that serves as the base of our society. Additionally, they are just as able to adopt children as any other couple is to conceive themselves. The bottom line is that they meet the requirements of our democratic society to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage. In a democracy, the people have the right to direct their own society. That said, overwhelming majorities have voted down gay marriage in various statewide referendums.

This is not a matter of discrimination. It is an issue of simply not always allowing people to do whatever they want to do just because they think it is their right.

Gay "rights" advocates have chosen the low road in debating this issue. For my views on the matter, I will undoubtedly be labeled a facist, racist, relgious fundamentalist, and all kinds of other great names. Why? Because those who invent their own rights hardly ever respect the guaranteed rights of others. My opinion is not based on religion, hate, or prejudice. It is based on political fact. And it's my right.