On Election Day, 11 states voted on an amendment to ban homosexual marriage. One of the most heated places to debate the subject is Indiana's next-door neighbor Ohio.
Only 37 percent of the voters were against the measure, even though the way the amendment was written presents the citizens with some of the toughest standards in the country.
These regulations were so harsh that the Republican governor even said that he does not support the amendment. He called the wording "an ambiguous invitation to litigation . . . that will make it more difficult for us to retain and attract the young talented knowledge workers we need to advance Ohio's prosperity in the 21st century."
He knows that supporting a gay marriage ban is detrimental to the future of Ohio. Progressive measures show that the state is progressive and young people in the country want to be in that innovative, future-leading, dominant culture.
I cannot truthfully testify that I believe Ohio is going in the entirely wrong direction. There should be more restrictions on marriage. Let me repeat that.
THERE SHOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE.
However, banning someone from getting married to someone else because of the genders of the partners is reprehensible. We should be less worried about the homosexual tendencies of the citizens of the United States and more worried about the straight couples that get married for superficial reasons and get divorced in a matter of days.
President Bush defended his support for a ban on gay marriage with his moral and religious background. Unfortunately for Bush, the people in the United States do not have uniform morals and backgrounds. In reaction to the court decision in Massachusetts to allow homosexual marriage, Bush said, "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
What religion is Bush referring to? What about the Unitarian Universalists who welcome people from all sexual orientations? The Unitarian Universalist church is a largely established Christian church, so why must they suffer because Bush does not agree with their philosophies?
In fact, the government should not be involved with marriage at all. Marriage is a religious concept. Civil unions have a legal basis. Civil unions are, technically, the only part of marriage that the government should be concerned with. Marriage is religious. If a church would like to perform homosexual marriage, let it. The fact that the church can perform homosexual marriage is what makes this country great, and taking away that right of the church is completely against the concepts that our country's fathers established us on.
Saying that homosexual marriage is sacrilegious is only looking at "religious" from one perspective. Homosexual marriage may be against the religion of which Bush observes, but the Methodist church is not the official church of America. The nation is a "melting pot" of all religions, and Bush should recognize and embrace that diversity.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
