Marriage vs. Civil Union

President Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex. However, he left open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

“The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said as reported by cnn.com. A full transcript of Bush’s statements can be found here.

Ron Paul is a congressman representing the 14th district in Texas. He calls marriage “a religious matter, not a government matter.” Law should mirror moral standards, but morality comes from religion, philosophy, societal standards, families, and responsible individuals, according to Paul. “It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions,” he wrote in an article called Gay Marriage Quicksand, which appeared in The New American.

While some may view it as sad, others view it as necessary. And why shouldn’t they? Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against gay people. I am in no way against gays living together in some form of unifying bond. But to call something that is sexually artificial to begin with “marriage” defies more than just the bond between a man and a woman; it defies the basis of our culture.

Marriage is a religious term for sanctifying and symbolizing the heterosexual union between a man and a woman. To cast aside the religious references is to disrespect the right to freedom of religion. Allowing a gay couple’s union to be called “marriage” infringes on religious freedom.

While we’re disposing of the country’s foundational moral standards, we might as well scrap the rest of the Constitution as well.