The United States government has long defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. So why, now, has the perversion of this union become a popular debate?

Since the beginning of time, homosexual relations have been written and recorded, yet never has there been an attempt to make a “legal marriage.” The United States government did not create marriage. Why, then, should it have the power to change the meaning of it entirely?

While the official definition of marriage came in the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, it was long assumed that marriage was only recognized between a man and a woman. These assumptions come from traditions passed down from our forefathers.

We seem to take for granted the preservation of tradition and keeping of what our forefathers established for us as American citizens. The values of the country were established principles that have worked for more than 200 years.

We are now placing these values in jeopardy by looking at them so frivolously and allowing ourselves to think them out of date.

Our perceptions as a society have overwhelmingly been corrupted, and many can no longer see hope for our future generations.

To assume that homosexual marriage is a legitimate institution, it is necessary to accept that homosexual relationships can and should exist.

This is obviously another issue entirely — all I feel compelled to say is humans and animals alike are made to fit together male and female. This is obvious in our anatomy and our ability to reproduce. Homosexuality is a perversion of sexual acts which are undoubtedly for the purpose of reproduction. Putting that aside, the real issue is whether the U.S. government should recognize these unions as marriage in the way that marriage has been established.

To assume the definition of marriage is changeable is to assume that one is entitled to change it.

The whole argument against gay marriage is not to keep homosexuals from having a bond with one another for the rest of their lives.

It’s basically to say that marriage is what it is. Take animals, for instance. Animals are able to have lasting relationships with one another; does that then mean we should all bring our pets in to the courthouse to get a marriage license for them?

In the same way that animal marriage changes the entire institution of marriage, so also does homosexual marriage. Marriage is a particular establishment created for man and woman, which is not changeable to what a society or group of people might want it to be.

Just because societal acceptance of an issue changes, and people become more tolerant and liberal, it does not ultimately conclude that laws need to be changed.

Just because a group of people thinks it best to make English the official language does not mean the group’s opinion should be the ultimate result and their opinion the best solution to the problem. Laws currently prohibit Arnold Schwarzenegger from becoming president, as he is not a natural born citizen.

Some may say that discriminates against those who should have the opportunity as any other American citizen. Others would adamantly disagree. A change in opinion or an opinion differing from that of existing law is not just cause to change it.

It’s true that marriage was not created by the U.S. government. Marriage existed long before the United States came to be.

But when the U.S. government embraced this tradition, it was not intended for anything but the union of a man and a woman to become husband and wife.

Have our American values changed so much that we need to change every law to accommodate to some portion of the population?

I think not.

America needs to work hard to re-establish values set by our forefathers and keep solid the morals that remain.

America must act, as President Bush has suggested, if we do not want the meaning of marriage and the meaning of family corrupted for our children, and for their children.

---

Anne Naberhaus is a sophomore in industrial engineering from Carroll. She is a member of the ISU College Republicans.