|Tue, Sep 02, 2014 02:52 AM
July 09, 2014 | 12:02 PM
The wedding-bell blues dampen many Hoosiers' spirits as same-sex couples await the future of their state-recognized marital bliss.
On June 25, Indiana Judge Richard Young ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, making Indiana the 20th state — and the ninth by court ruling — to allow same-sex marriage recognition.
Young rightfully struck the ban on the grounds it violated due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the constitution.
Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should legalize same-sex marriages?
Three days later, a federal appeals court issued a stay that put the ruling on hold until the U.S. Supreme-Court comes to a decision, leaving hopeful same-sex couples waiting in limbo.
Until a resolution comes about, civil rights and anti-gay activists alike continue to voice their opinions and fight for their right to protect their definitions of marriage.
At a press conference back on Jan. 27, Family Research Council Action Senior Fellow Peter Scriggs spoke in favor of protecting the "public institution" of marriage as he said it is written in the Bible.
"Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society," Scriggs said.
What "benefits" does Scriggs refer to?
"Society needs children," he said.
Scriggs said all non-procreative relationships are not true marriages, which implies that heterosexual couples who are sterile or choose to remain child-free fall into this category.
If a "good Christian" couple makes their vow to God only to find they lack the ability to reproduce, are they expected to divorce? I think not.
In regard to society's "need" for children, I would like to point out the lack of shortage when it comes to teen moms and starving children throughout the world.
From 1800 to 2012, the world's population skyrocketed from about one billion to seven billion people.
Ideas such as the Malthusian and NeoMalthusian theories suggest the world's rapidly expanding population negatively affects consumption of natural resources, the job market, homelessness and availability of food.
However, I do not agree that government interference of birth rate is the correct way to address these concerns, as some theories suggest.
Even though the U.S. growth rate dwindles (in 2013, the U.S. reached its lowest rate since the 1930s, according to census data), every eight seconds a child is born and only every 13 seconds does someone die.
Whether one agrees that population growth is a concern, no urgent need exists for reproduction rates to increase. Humans, by far, are not an endangered species (at least not in relation to population density).
"Children need a mother and a father," Scriggs said, adding that both common sense and social science "prove" the theory of the necessity for heterosexual parents to be defensible and accurate.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association and many other scientific organizations all claim that zero scientific evidence exists to classify same-sex partners as unfit guardians.
Many studies have been done during decades of researching the outcome of children raised by gay or straight couples. Neither side has come up with truly verifiable results because there are so few gay parents throughout the nation to conduct a worthy study.
Also, what do studies use as a basis for the making of a "poorly raised" child?
Social science proves nothing except the fact that two parents are better than one. Denying homosexual couples their right to marry simply increases the rate of single parenting.
Also, it is safe to say that any child would choose to have two loving adults as their caretakers as opposed to none, which is, unfortunately, the case for thousands of starving and homeless children around the globe today.
As for common sense, who can honestly claim to know the parenting styles of every gay or straight relationship in the entire world?
Another subject Scriggs touched upon was the punishment of florists, bakers, photographers, etc. for their discrimination against homosexual couples, by their refusal of services.
He said he believes this violates business owners' freedom of religion.
Well, it is a crime for the same reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was set in motion.
The denial of service to an individual based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin is morally wrong and illegal, as is the wayward discrimination toward people of opposing sexual orientation.
According to Scriggs, and sadly many others, freedom of prejudice toward another based upon ridiculous religious convictions is a "right" worth protecting.
The Bible also says slavery is permissible and women should keep their mouths shut under God's roof. These outdated concepts, once accepted by society, were abandoned for many reasons, such as the overwhelming oppression they permit.
On Facebook, my home-page gets riddled with quotes from biblical scripture in defense or support of a personal belief. These posts tend to accumulate a diversity of responses, some quite heated.
The truth is that anyone with a preconceived notion in mind can spout a verse of God's word which they deem validates their own beliefs. Any idea is defensible.
With such colossal discrepancy, how does any being believe they can truly define anything from a biblical standpoint?
Each year, more and more people come to terms with the reality that homosexuals are people, many of whom contribute much to society and deserve the same rights as their fellow Americans.
To tell another human being he or she cannot get married because of their sexual orientation mirrors the banning of interracial marriage or marriage between people with tattoos or piercings or fat people or those who listen to Nickelback or loud, annoying, obnoxious, needy, passive-aggressive people. To strike down one's rights based on their dissent from the "norm" creates oppression, strife, discrimination, segregation, prejudice and hate.
"It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength," said the late Maya Angelou.