Freedom for all - gays too

The gay rights movement has gained momentum in the last decade. The movement has come “out of the closet”. There is more awareness of their issues in most social and political domains. More research is being done on gender characteristics and relationships. In 2004, President George W. Bush called on Congress to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples (“Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages”). This would be a step in the wrong direction and shows how much influence conservative groups have on the President and the Republican Party. Gay couples can function just the same as straight couples and should be given the legal rights to live together and called a family.
The debate over same-sex marriage is not about "tolerance" but "preference." Indeed, validation of same-sex marriage would demonstrate much more than mere "tolerance" of alternative "lifestyles." Marriage is not merely "tolerated" but is rather one of the most preferred relationships known in law. Accordingly, the demand for legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not a mere plea for tolerance, but a demand that society confer upon that relationship an exceptionally preferred status. They have no right to insist that we surrender our fundamental moral and religious beliefs in order that they might feel comfortable with their sexual behavior.
The homosexual community speaks of itself as struggling for civil rights.” The gay community's goal is integration--just as it was with Martin Luther King,' argues homosexual activist Harry Britt" (Horowitz p.72). Far from seeking integration with the heterosexual world, it vehemently avoids it. More important, "the movement seeks to win sinecures through the state, and over any objections by "homophobic" opposition. With a cloud of a heavy fine or even a jail sentence hanging over a mortgage lender, a rental agent, or a job interviewer who might be discomforted by them, homosexuals under these laws can win employment, credit, housing, and other economic entitlements" (Horowitz p.73).
On December 3, 1996, Judge Kevin Chang issued a 46 page ruling. He has determined that "the State of Hawaii failed to show a compelling state interest to justify the continuation of the ban against same-sex marriages" (Chang). Same sex marriages are now theoretically legal in Hawaii. However, the state refused to recognize the courts decision until it was formally filed. The attorney general obtained a stay of Judge Chang's court order, pending a decision by the state Supreme Court. That decision is not expected until late 1997 or early 1998.

Marriage is a unique practice, in that it is both a religious sacrament and legal registration controlled by the state. For the time being, marriage is defined by "84% of the population as the union of two people of the opposite sex" (Johnson p.49). Therefore, by definition, marriage has to be different sex. Whereas, the definition of homosexuality is "exhibiting sexual desire toward another of the same sex" (Webster's New World Dictionary p.673). Throughout human history, according to religious tradition and as a matter of natural law, marriage has been tied to potential procreative sexuality, which is a monopoly held by different-sex couples. Under this definitional objection, "the state cannot recognize something that is an impossibility" (Eskridge p.87).