The writer of “Presidential position” (ABN, June 14, 2012) is correct in stating that the Constitution of the United States is to be applied equally to all citizens, but is wrong in his application of that meaning. The protections provided under our Constitution apply to persons, not behaviors, and there is a difference between the two. A “person” is either male or female. Their “race” is a physical feature that further defines their personhood; they are still either male or female. “Behavior” refers to one’s actions, not to one’s personhood. Behaviors are driven by our desires, and homosexuality is a behavior driven by a same-sex desire; desires can be controlled and behaviors can change, but race cannot.
All of our laws, including our Constitution, do discriminate, but they discriminate against behaviors, not persons. For example, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion protection discriminates against those who, through their behavior, would try to force their form of worship on to others. It discriminates against their behavior, not them as persons. Laws must discriminate against certain behaviors for the betterment of society.
The issue of same-sex marriage is not an issue of equal rights. Homosexuals already have equal rights under the Constitution. There is nothing stopping same-sex couples from having a private marriage ceremony where they can pledge lifelong fidelity to one another; it just won’t be government sanctioned/endorsed, and that’s the real issue in this debate.
Why is government endorsement so important? This is the only way for those dealing with same-sex attraction to quell their conscience. If they can get society’s acceptance and approval of their behavior, then they will feel validated and their consciences cleared. The only venue available for making this happen is the institution of marriage. By redefining marriage, their immoral behavior now becomes natural and acceptable.