The Purpose of Marriage 
By Kelly Bartlett

The sexual union of a married couple is procreative. By its very nature, the heterosexual act has the potential to create a child; thus it is community-oriented. This is why marriage is so important: marriage actually creates communities, hence society’s interest in supporting it. In contrast, a homosexual union never produces children because it is intrinsically sterile; gay sex is not community-oriented. Vermont can never replenish her citizenry with gay sex. 

Yes, men and women are equal in dignity and worth; however, their physical differences mean they are not identical when it comes to sex. Likewise, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both endowed with dignity and worth; however, their gender differences mean their sexual relationships are not interchangeable. Gay sex excludes gender diversity and cannot create new life. 

Gay marriage activists ask us to be gender-blind. For most folks, there is no time when gender matters more than when it comes to marriage, sex, and having children. Even homosexuals, by definition, prefer one gender to another; thus they are not gender-blind. Bisexuals are arguably the most gender-blind among us; and surely they would agree there is no such thing as a pregnant father. Biology is not gender-blind. 

Activists say homosexuals deserve equal treatment in marriage laws. Yes, this is exactly how they are currently treated. Homosexual individuals already have the right to marry; the marriage license doesn’t ask about sexual orientation. One of my gay relatives married and had a daughter. This daughter would not exist today if he hadn’t married. 

Law experts stress that civil unions already grant gays as many legal benefits as possible. The only additional legal right that gay marriage confers is the right to sue businesses and individuals for not acting gender-blind. Gay marriage will have a tremendous impact on the parental, property, and religious rights of those who realize that males and females are different. 

Legalizing gay marriage claims that gay sex is so beneficial to society that it must be protected by law and taught to children. Schools will need to restructure health classes to be inclusive and cover gay and lesbian sex or else they can be sued for discrimination. Do Vermonters want teachers to devote equal time explaining how babies are made and how gays have sex? Who decides which homosexual acts we teach to students and when? Is ninth grade the most age-appropriate time to explain to kids the mechanics of how gay men have sex together? Is it healthy? If adults are uncomfortable discussing this, imagine how kids feel when they are unable to opt out of their schools’ homosexual classes as in Massachusetts, California, and Spain. 

Forcing the moral views of a minority on the majority trampled parental rights in East London where parents are being investigated for withdrawing their young children from the weeklong Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender studies at their school. Since when did protecting children from premature sexual information become a crime? How does an adult’s right to teach about gays trump a child’s right to innocence?

Imposing the religious views of a minority on the majority caused a legal nightmare in California when a handful of judges approved gay marriage, then a majority of people voted against it. Our gay friends and neighbors deserve better than legal chaos like that.

Gay marriage activists argue that civil unions are "separate" from marriage. Yes, they are different precisely because gay sex is physically, biologically, and socially different from heterosexual sex. Gay sex lacks the diversity and complementarity of a man and woman and cannot create new life. To claim that two men are the equivalent of a man and woman says that either children are unimportant, or that mothers are. Or both. 

Our gay friends and relatives contribute much to our society. We can work on a better environment and economy for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. As for marriage rights, gays are free to choose marriage, or a civil union, or single life. The choice is already theirs. But our legislature should not give gay activists the right to redefine marriage for everybody and to sue businesses and individuals who don’t treat them in a gender-blind manner. 

Most people marvel at and celebrate the different genders we are born with. How did our biological genders become so offensive to a minority that we are asked to pretend they don’t exist? Why rob our children of the joyful terms bride and groom? Does the Vermont legislature have the right to steal motherhood from children? 

This issue is all about children: how we create them; what we teach them about the beauty of gender and sex; how we protect their precious sexual innocence. As we take Vermont forward we must always keep in mind that the future is not just ours; it also belongs to our children. 
 

Kelly Bartlett Lives in Jericho