Bill Sharer
Here is my response to Jake Mayfield’s op-ed, “Allowing gay people to marry is the right thing to do.”
New Mexico law does not address homosexual marriage at all. Until recently no one even contemplated such a dramatic change in the thousands of years of traditional interpretation of marriage.
Although I am a Christian I do not need to use the Bible or any other religious book to see the fallacy of homosexual marriage. I do, however, acknowledge the great truths and wisdom of the Bible, including the commandment to “love thy neighbor” taught in the New Testament.
My position on homosexual marriage is clear; nature already decided who qualifies for marriage. A man and a woman can (although they may choose not to) have children. A man can love many things, he can be committed to those things, he can even have sex with them, but he can only have children with a woman; therefore, he can only marry a woman. Commitment and love are not sufficient reasons to alter the definition of marriage.
No benefit to society by calling it ‘marriage’
Relationships that qualify for marriage are based on the universe of humanity, not specific individuals. Humanity has accepted this law of nature for thousands of years. Even people who never heard of the Bible have accepted that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bonding that takes place in the relationship between a man and a woman, which most often results in children, is a natural and good thing since it encourages couples to stay together to rear their children and creates the most fundamental unit of all societies: the traditional family.
If we look at history we can see that the ancient Greeks clearly accepted homosexual behavior. It was an open part of their society, but even they did not have homosexual marriages. It was then, and is now, clear that such marriages would do nothing to benefit Greek society as a whole, nor would it serve to perpetuate their society or culture. Societies have long regulated who can and cannot marry in the interest of the health of society; for example, we have laws against incest.
I believe that all of us must “love thy neighbor;” however, this does not mean that we must accept and encourage any and all behavior. Rejection of behavior is not hatred of the individual. Hatred or bigotry is not the basis for my objection to homosexual marriage. I have never advocated mistreating anyone.
The advocates for homosexual marriage seem to be interested in healthcare benefits, inheritance, property rights, etc. All of these concerns can be addressed today through proper estate planning and beneficiary designation. I see no benefit to society by calling these issues “marriage.”
Far more than a mere legal contract
Marriage is a natural law. The state Legislature can legally change the definition of gravity, but that does not change the reality of gravity. The same is true of marriage.
The only reason the state has any business in marriage is because of children. Marriage is the first and best child welfare system. Keeping moms and dads together protects the unrelated taxpayers from being burdened with having to pay for dadless children.
Marriage is far more than a mere legal contract endorsed by the state.
Sharer, a Republican, is the state senator representing the Farmington-area District 1.