All we need is love
By Robert T. Smith
web posted March 25, 2013
Marriage is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." This definition has been a basic truth historically and around the world, in every religion and culture. Regardless of the time-tested traditional application of marriage between a man and woman, the current push for homosexual same-sex marriage is the progressives' assault on religion and tradition, and the creation of cultural chaos.
Equal treatment under the law requires that anyone may marry. However, certain rules exist for marriage. You cannot marry your mother, father, sister, or brother; the marriage has to be consensual; you cannot marry an 8 year old juvenile; you cannot marry more than one person; you must marry a human; and most clearly, you must marry a person of the opposite sex, by definition. Every person must follow these same laws, the very definition of equal treatment.
Simply by changing the definition of marriage does not suddenly conform a history of laws developed specifically for the unique circumstance of male/female marriage to a different situation. Marriage laws were developed for specific purposes, to provide protections for the men, women, and offspring involved, and the perpetuation of society itself. Other legal constructs can achieve all of the same outcomes that are alleged to be sought by same-sex marriage groups, but that is not their agenda.
It was not that long ago that tolerance was all that homosexuals claimed to want. Tolerance does not require acceptance or approval, it only requires non-interference with others decisions on how they live their lives. A keystone of the liberty and freedom of "Americanism" is the right to be left alone. However, tolerance is not the objective of the same-sex marriage crowd. The demand is for acceptance and approval, with the agenda of establishing an equivalency with traditional marriage. Their intent is for acceptance and approval by force of law. To only provide tolerance, but not provide acceptance and approval is now branded intolerant.
Most important to those who must follow their religious beliefs in this debate, is their basic requirement to confront false teachings and sinful behavior. This is not slander or judgment; instead, this is correction that seeks to save our fellow man, a truly caring act. Love the sinner but hate the sin is the key phrase overlooked by the homosexual, same-sex marriage crowd.
Tolerance, acceptance and approval are apparently a one-way street.
- Many do not want their children taught in schools that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are morally or religiously equivalent to heterosexuality and traditional marriage. Will homosexuals tolerate this?
- Many do not want their children taught in schools that males and females are indifferent, that the sexes were not uniquely created as male or female. Will homosexuals tolerate this?
- Many do not want their children taught in schools the amoral and unnatural sex acts of same sex participants. Will homosexuals tolerate this?
- Many do not want their church leaders forced to marry homosexual couples against the basic principles and teachings of their religion, and don't want their church forced as a public accommodation to host weddings and other ceremonies involving homosexual couples. Will homosexuals tolerate this?
- Many wedding photographers, cake makers, social hall owners, etc., do not want to be forced to participate in homosexual marriages in direct contradiction with their moral and religious beliefs. Will homosexuals tolerate this?
The list can go on and on. The answer to these questions is no, actions have already been taken by homosexuals in these exact circumstances. Once enshrined in law, approval and acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage become the legal obligation, they are equivalent.
Homosexual group identity is custom made for the Democrat party progressives. It is only through sloppy thinking that same-sex marriage is being touted as a civil right that is being violated. It is not equivalent to compare historic racial group (colored Americans) civil rights to a group defined by a sex act, that is arguably more of a psychological issue than a civil right. It is clear that the group-think of progressivism requires special treatment for the group defined as homosexuals, not equal rights. It seems a bit insane to infringe on the moral and religious rights of hundreds of millions, to accommodate a very small sex-act identified group, a direct assault on religion and the first amendment.
The impassioned plea of the homosexuals and same-sex marriage groups are to just be able to marry someone they love. The implications to the remainder of society not considered in their push, not for tolerance, but for forced acceptance and approval of their chosen lifestyle. 
Robert T. Smith is an environmental scientist who spends his days enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness with his family. He confesses to cling to his liberty, guns and religion, with antipathy toward the arrogant ruling elites throughout the country.