OPINION: Vote "yes" on preserving society
The citizens of South Carolina will vote this Tuesday on a monumental constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment states: “A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized.”
If this amendment is passed, South Carolina will join 19 other states with constitutional amendments recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage.
Why should the citizens of South Carolina vote in favor of this amendment?
As students at a Christian university, we know that God ordained the model of marriage as one man and one woman for life, but defining the institution of marriage has social ramifications as well.
Voters of all backgrounds need to realize that recognizing homosexual marriage as valid would be socially destructive.
Societies throughout history have recognized the traditional family unit as the cornerstone on which the rest of society is built. Government classes teach that the basic social structure in America is fundamentally “home, state, then nation.” Compromising the cornerstone of society is the first step towards tearing down the entire structure.
The socially destructive impact of recognizing homosexual marriage would be traumatic particularly to the children of the next generation–the future leaders of our nation.
Experts emphasize that children should be well-rounded and have a little taste of as many things as they can. So parents enroll their kids in music lessons, take them to sports practices and encourage each child’s individual interests. Society places importance on being as balanced as possible.
But having two dads or two moms is the most unbalanced thing possible. No matter how hard someone may try, a woman cannot physically, emotionally or biologically be a dad, and a man can never be a mother. Attempting to do so is naïve.
The judicial branch of our federal government, the Supreme Court, has ruled in cases that involve social norms.
Reynolds v. United States, a case from the late 19th century, dealt with the issue of polygamy. Reynolds argued that it was his religious right to practice polygamy. Bigamy was already illegal, but the final ruling was that religious duty wasn’t a defense against a crime or social offense.
The Supreme Court judges saw that polygamy was a threat to society. The court argued that if polygamy was allowed to continue, other offenses, such as human sacrifice, could follow in the name of religion.
The Supreme Court recognized the danger and destructive ramifications of violating the social norm and conscience. The ruling then to protect the institution of marriage solidified and acted upon that accepted norm.
The federal government restricted the definition of marriage in order to preserve society, and voters today should do the same.
Those who oppose the amendment have attempted–unsuccessfully–to package their arguments as pro-family. Their signs urge us to vote against the “family discrimination act” and encourage voters to visit the “dumb amendment” website. Resorting to calling traditional social norms “dumb” and “discriminating” isn’t valid–it’s desperate.
South Carolina voters need to intelligently evaluate the nature and ramifications of the issue of gay marriage.
Voters need to consider the need to preserve the family unit, support official recognition of social norms and recognize the twisted approach that the opposition is taking.
South Carolina voters need to vote “yes” to preserve the definition of the family unit as society has always recognized it.
