The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right

with 20 comments

On top of her opinions being broadcast into numerous homes around the world, Comedian and Talk Show Host Ellen DeGeneres has personally bought $100,000 of television airtime to urge Californians to vote no on Proposition 8 (Yahoo News).  The ad begins with these words from Ellen:

Hi, I’m Ellen DeGeneres. I got to do something this year I never thought I’d ever be able to do: I got married. It was the happiest day of my life. There are people out there raising millions of dollars to try and take that right away from me (bold mine).

Ellen continues her appeal to the Californian constituents, saying, “You’ve seen their ads on TV. They’re twisting the truth, and they’re trying to scare you. I believe in fairness.  I believe in compassion. I believe in equality for all people.  Proposition 8 does not.  Please, please, vote no on Prop. 8” (bold mine). 

Within this short video segment we unearth a common theme of equality and same-sex marriage as a Civil Right that is interwoven throughout many same-sex marriage campaigns.  Ellen speaks of marriage synonymously with her personal right to marry whom she wills.  She would have people believe that there are some out there who are attempting to take that right away from her by raising millions of dollars and twisting the truth, with the hopes of scaring everyone with their mean-spirited, bigoted, and deceitful message.   

Not only is this the case, but Ellen went on to strike a sympathetic cord among her viewers by expressing her belief in fairness and equality for all people which must denote that those who disagree with her and are promoting Proposition 8 don’t.     

Many that have commented on this blog, as well as others that I have dialogued with elsewhere, agree with Ellen that practicing homosexuals are an oppressed minority who are being denied the right to marry whom they will.  

But is this the case?  Are practicing homosexuals being denied the basic Civil Rights that heterosexuals enjoy?  Is their cause righteous and to be considered synonymous with the Civil Rights movement of the past?

We will consider these questions and others.  So please, click “Read the rest of this entry” and join in on the conversation.   What are Civil Rights? 

Civil Rights are defined as: “Guarantees by government of equal citizenship to all social groups” (Edward Greenberg and Benjamin Page, The Struggle for Democracy).  These guarantees of equal citizenship by the government are usually thought of in the following terms:

·         Freedom of religion,

·         Freedom of speech,

·         Freedom of assembly,

·         Freedom of press,

·         The rights to due process of law,

·         The right to vote

·         The right to life,

·         Equal protection under the law, and

·         Equality in public places. 


These rights are guaranteed to every citizen and social groups and are in the constitution (Particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments of the Bill of Rights), irrespective of their color, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual behavior (see U.S. Legal, Yahoo Education, and Family Research Council  ). 

A persons Civil Rights are not based upon their behavior, but rather their humanity.  This is why I believe that Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier rightly observed:

When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license.  This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has   regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration (Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right).

Even though a person’s humanity is the determining factor of their Civil Rights, many – such as Ellen DeGeneres – are claiming that those who have chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle are not being treated fair and equally as citizens of the United States of America.  The reader would do well to file this thought away to memory:

Homosexuals HAVE NEVER been denied any of these rights, NOR is anyone proposing to deny such rights to homosexuals in the future (capitals mine, Family Research Council)

Under the surface of the positive, warm, and fuzzy same-sex marriage messages is the knowledge that the government’s special legal protection of their behavior WILL LEAD to the denial of the afore mentioned Civil Rights of those who disagree.

The government is restricted by the Civil Rights cited above when carrying out the law throughout our country.  When the government looks to extend one such Civil Right to an individual or social group previously void of these rights, then they are to be extended WITHOUT suppressing these same Civil Rights of others. 

Consider this example, “when the right to vote was extended to blacks and then to women, this did nothing to limit the right of whites or of men to vote” (ibid.). 

However, if homosexuals are extended the “right” to “marry,” individuals, social organizations, businesses, churches, and schools, WILL LOSE their Civil Rights as cited above (see From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to the Suppression of Freedom). 

Those who practice homosexuality possess all of the Civil Rights mentioned above.  Even though this is the case, there is ONE question that still remains: “Is marriage a civil right that should be permitted for all to participate in?” 

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

In an attempt to further their agenda, many in the pro-homosexual and same-sex marriage camps are attempting to correlate the fight for same-sex marriage with past struggles for Civil Rights among women and blacks.  For instance, in an article written by Laila Ibrahim for the San Fransico Chronicle, we read:

Two hundred years ago, only men who owned land were allowed to vote. Women could not vote in this country until 1920. Thirty-eight years ago, interracial marriage was against the law in many states. Fifty years ago, Rosa Parks had to sit in the back of the bus…It is time to remedy an injustice in our midst. It is time to take another step in building the fair and just society of which our ancestor dreamed (Same-Sex Marriage: Civil Marriage is a Civil Right).

Outside of interracial marriage (more on this latter), everything alluded to above deals explicitly with rights that practicing homosexuals already possess.  Since this is the case, we need to ask, “Is it injust to deny homosexuals the right to marry?  Is marriage a Civil Right that should be permitted for all to participate in?”


Above we noted what is considered a Civil Right, and marriage IS NOT one of them.  Marriage is a privilege, NOT a right.  Anyone is free to marry; however, there are certain limitations and restrictions to be adhered to (Thank you “Jon” for pointing this out in your comment):


1.   Persons eligible for marriage must be unmarried (ex. A person cannot have multiple husbands or wives),


2.   Be of age (ex. An adult cannot marry a child),


3.   Marry beyond the bounds of close kinship (ex. A relative cannot marry his or her sibling), and


4.  Marry a person of the opposite sex (see Neither a Marriage Nor a Civil Right).

Marriage is not a civil right to be entered into by everyone and anyone.  As you can see, there are certain limitations that are to be adhered to prior to being permitted to “marry” another. 

At this point, some will vociferously bemoan that same-sex marriage is equivalent to interracial marriage which was forbidden by law some years ago.  Once again, is this the case?  Is same-sex marriage to be considered synonymously with interracial marriage?  Let us consider a few points why this is NOT the case. 

Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT Synonymous with Interracial Marriage

The primary reasons why same-sex marriage IS NOT synonymous with interracial marriage is this: 

Homosexual behavior is not inborn, involuntary, and immutable (Family Research Council).

Unlike a person’s masculinity, femininity, ethnicity, disability, and race, homosexual behavior IS NOT inborn, involuntary, and immutable. 

At the moment I am not going to rehash all of the different studies that validate the three previous mentioned categories.  For this I refer you to Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right, Getting it Straight, and The Homosexual Agenda. 

First, homosexual behavior is NOT inborn.  People are not born with a homosexual gene that leads them to practice homosexual behavior.  From studies on the brain, identical twins, and genes, there is no scientific evidence that supports homosexuality to be inborn.

Second, homosexual behavior is NOT involuntary.  That is, homosexuals are not incapable of engaging in heterosexual relationships.   In fact, research indicates that nearly 80% of “self-identified ‘homosexuals’ have engaged in heterosexual relationships” (ibid.).  It appears that self-identified homosexuals are more than capable of voluntarily engaging in a heterosexual relationship and are capable of controlling their behavior, which is borne out by the next point.

Third, homosexual behavior is NOT immutable.  Unlike a person’s race and ethnicity, homosexual behavior can change.  There is no such thing as a former white or black person or male or female (since their very sexual identity is inscribed within their genes and cannot be done away with by a “sex” change). 

However, there are thousands of former homosexuals.  Since the following is so important to the validity of this argument, I will quote at length from the Family Research Council:

The strongest scientific evidence of this was provided by one of the most unlikely sources. 

Robert L. Spitzer is a psychiatrist who was instrumental in pushing for the controversial 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders…Nevertheless, Dr. Spitzer had the intellectual honesty to accept a challenge to study the results of what is called “reparative therapy” for homosexuality… 

In his own words, Dr. Spitzer concluded:

This study indicates that some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, report that they have made major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation.  The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity.  The changes encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings.  The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation (ibid.).

Unlike the color of a person’s skin, masculinity, or femininity, homosexual behavior can change.   It is known that true “minority groups share immutable, benign, non-behavioral characteristics such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin.  Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior” (Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right). 

This is why same-sex marriage is not synonymous with interracial marriage.  For homosexual behavior is NOT inborn, involuntary, or immutable. 


In spite of Ellen DeGeneres compassionate plea to Californians, same-sex marriage IS NOT a Civil Right that can be entered into by anyone and everyone. 

With this, I would like to finish with the words from The Center for Public Justice: Guidelines for Government and Citizenship:

Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person’s status as a citizen with civil rights in the political community. Civil rights include the right to life, property, religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association, access to a fair trial, participation in political and legal processes, and equal treatment under the law…Human society includes various forms of friendship and relationships, some of which involve enduring commitments. There is no reason to single out homosexual relationships for extra public-legal recognition or benefit.

And I would like to personally add one point, there is no reason to extend extra public-legal recognition at the expense of suppressing the Civil Rights of others. 

Further Food for Thought:

The People Have Spoken

From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to the Suppression of Freedom

Marriage: Its Foundational Importance


Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Jesse Wisnewski currently serves as the Executive Administrator of Perrow Church in Cross Lanes, WV.  He is currently attending Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary – Charlotte and is completing coursework towards a Master of Divinty.  Jesse and his wife have two sons. 

Consider Sharing This Post:  

add to : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook


Written by Jesse Wisnewski

November 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You are vile, vile people. Quit twisting the scripture to suit your own hate-filled, bigoted needs and LIVE AND LET LIVE.

    You disgust me.


    November 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  2. Dear Anonymous,

    Thanks for joining in the conversation!

    I don’t like to make many assumptions in life. However, based upon your comment I must assume that you did not read the post since there is no reference to the Bible and/or Scriptures.

    I encourage you to read it and comment upon the content that is written.


    Jesse Wisnewski

    Jesse Wisnewski

    November 4, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  3. You assume that being gay is a choice. Will you change your opinion if you are proved to be wrong about that?


    November 4, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  4. Dear Stephen,

    Thanks for stopping by and asking a question. Before answering your question I would like to ask you a couple of questions first.

    One, did you read the post?

    If so, why do you think that my writing was based upon an assumptions?

    Thanks Stephen

    Jesse Wisnewski

    November 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  5. Just because the Family Research Council says homosexuality is not a choice you say Gay Marriage is not a civil right. Maybe you should try speaking with actual homosexuals.

    While some heterosexuals may choose to participate in “homosexual acts”, there’s most certainly people who can’t choose.—those who can’t deny their natural sexual and emotional feelings toward the same sex. Yes, I could kiss a female, and possibly love one, but I could never have sex with one for the simple fact that I am not sexually attracted to females!


    November 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  6. Dear Ryan,

    Thanks for joining in the conversation.

    Ryan, you wrongly assumed two things. First, you assumed that my stance is based upon the findings of one group. That is not the case at all. Second, you assumed that I never have spoken with a homosexual. Once again, this is not the case at all.

    In regard to sexual orientation, there are three things: attraction, behavior, and self-identification. For example: “Attractions are indeed ‘involuntary.’ But people do choose, and can be held responsible for, what overt sexual behaviors they actually engage in. A heterosexual married man might feel sexually attracted to a woman who is nnot his wife, but if he acts on that attraction, he is rightyl condemned for an act of adultery. The fact that his sexual attraction was ‘involuntary’ is no excuse for failing to control his behavior.”

    As I said in my post, 80% “self-identified” homoexuals have engaged in heterosexual relationships

    Even though our sexual orientations are different, there is one similarity. They are both naked to the human eye. Therefore, behavior is what matters wshen it comes to public policy. Since homosexual behavior is not “involuntary” and/or “unchangeable” it should not be considered a characteristic for special legal protection in the law and is not synonmous with peoples race, ethnicity, or disability.

    Jesse Wisnewski

    November 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  7. Dear Author,

    I would first like to state that I read and further more re-read your post. The extensive research you provided on the subject is noteworthy. However, there is a variety of research that you may need to include in your reasoning and justification.

    If we are viewing historical documentation, “Thomas Jefferson” states, “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If we are analyzing the equality of individuals would that not include sexual orientation? (Now, I realize you were not eliminating the equality of homosexuals) To continue with this analysis each individual is guaranteed the “pursuit of happiness.” Happiness can differentiate between individuals. It could be that some individuals base their happiness on monetary value, some on intrinsic rewards and some on locating that “individual” who they desire to marry and create a home. “Pursuing” that contentment would be classified as an underlying right.

    In assessing your categories for homosexuality, I would like to insert some additional facts and statistics regarding the institution of marriage. If we can refer to the “ever popular” psychology based tool known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs one of the upper tiers is labeled “Belonginess and Love.” The general concept that individuals “need” not a want or a desire but a biological and psychological requirement to be loved or reciprocate love. The upper tier is known as self-actualization. The “general” principle that one has achieved, gained approval, and reached their personal existence. Now, as a female I feel I have reached the stage of love through the interaction and commitment with my family but also having a reciprocated and acknowledged relationship with a man who will soon be labeled (legally) as my husband. Now, as a female I feel I will reach this “self-actualization” phase when I complete my doctoral degree and the day I become a mother. I could not imagine not being acknowledged as a wife (legally) or refused the “choice” to have a marriage and someday a family. Further more the “realities” of marriage in 2008 have transformed from that of the 1950’s. A marriage “male and female” is stated statistically (in 2002) to be 50%. Now, these percentages are said to increase with multiple divorces etc. To continue with the side effects of divorce and the repercussions on the youth resulted in that union would be not only repetitive but “common knowledge.” There are heterosexual couples who daily file (legally) for a divorce. The “pride and seriousness” of marriage has been decreasing during the past decades. Why these individuals should be slighted of a right more than half the population is failing at? According to the “gay marriage facts and statistics” “Demographic information also showed most of the couples were older and better educated than average newlywed couples, with more than 74% over 35 years old and 69 % holding a college degree.” Maybe just maybe “marriage” should be an option for their pursuit of happiness. Who are we to judge?

    Now, on a personal note I would like to provide some information about myself. I was raised in a Christian family. I am confident and comfortable to label myself a Christian. I am a heterosexual female who is in a solid relationship. This relationship will soon end in a marriage in the upcoming years. Regarding this subject, I feel that numerous people not only feel passionately about “rights and liberties” but also can often become alienated and saddened by brash views. Now, author happiness as previously discussed varies depending on the person. I base my happiness not only on my academic and professional pursuits but also on that of my social situations. Among these social situations will be my pride and fulfillment on one day being a wife and a mother. I cannot fathom state or government rejecting this “pursuit.”

    Independent Thought

    November 5, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  8. Dear Independent Thinker,

    Thank you for stopping by and providing an at length response to my post. It is obvious that you are well studied based upon the marrow of your content. Although you currently rest on a different side of the spectrum in regards to this topic, I appreciate the grace that you expressed in your comment.

    You bring up two interesting points: (1) Declaration of Independence; and (2) Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Let me begin with the former of the two.

    You are more than justified in citing the very words penned by Thomas Jefferson. Before citing additional historical documents, I would like to precede by saying that I DO NOT agree with the conclusions proposed by these two different gentlemen. The only reason that I am relating these thoughts is to help clarify the founder’s thoughts on homosexual behavior.

    In a letter written shortly after the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “buggery (i.e., homosexual sodomy) should be punished by ‘castration.” Also, George Washington removed a soldier from his army for attempting to participate in homosexual behavior, saying, “abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes” (In John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. The State of Texas (Feb. 2003). Taken from FRC)

    In addition to this, the Constitution DOES NOT include homosexual behavior and/or sexual orientation. I would explain this from the reasons cited above (i.e., homosexual behavior IS NOT inborn, involuntary, or immutable).
    Now, in regards to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I would not utilize this as a means of establishing extended Civil Rights to protect behaviors. A person’s innate need or want for personal self-actualization DOES NOT necessitate the extension of special legal protection (innate desires was addressed in a comment above).

    Honestly, I was lost towards the end of your second paragraph. Nonetheless, the unfortunate demise of marriage does not provide reason enough to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are things as individuals, families, communities, social organizations, and even the government can do to help support heterosexual marriages.

    Independent Thinker, just as you can’t fathom a state depriving you of same-sex marriage, I cannot fathom our great and free country of depriving me of my Civil Rights for extending special legal protection (see From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage WILL LEAD to the suppression of Freedom).

    Jesse Wisnewski

    November 5, 2008 at 8:11 pm

  9. Author,

    I appreciate your immediate response to my recent posting. As a published author and fellow Christian I find open publications (blogs) and topics such as this can result in not only disgruntled readers but the “off-put” stereotypes of the “Moral Authority Christian.” In your replies to numerous other “bloggers” you continue to state, “You assume or do not make the assumption.” It is often difficult to not create assumptions as this posting is located on the Internet and the tone of the author can only be detected by his or her words. Please do not think I am formulating an assumption because by definition an assumption is a statement that assumed to be accurate where conclusions can be drawn but from author to author your topic is extremely controversial. As a Christian we are continuously taught to love one another and lift up our fellow man. How can this type of action be displayed when the construction and implementation of a work is portrayed and “fiercely” supported with not only facts (which as we both know are necessary) but a dominating opinion?

    I realize the importance of documentation and facts but I also comprehend the crucial matter of “social graces.” If given the appropriate amount of time I could compose a piece containing more facts regarding this topic. You and I could continue this “educationally” sound conversation as it appears intellect is obviously involved. As a member of a family, community, academic institution, and church I feel it would be inappropriate to continue to discuss the “severity” and “emotion” that supports a topic such as this. For some members of the public this “Civil Right” is something that they are living through, striving for, and their experiences and life are invested in this cause. As an author it is imperative to keep this in the back of your mind.

    Regarding the conclusion of the second paragraph I was merely stating that the foundation of marriage (heterosexually) is dissolving. The individuals (homosexuals) who were married were found to be stable not only in profession but in measurable life aspects. These individuals could have a lifelong marriage, which would result in happiness. I do not disagree that community, government or church aid is available for “any” relationship whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. This pursuit of assistance would be up to the couple.

    As a Christian and believer in Christ I believe that it is our sole purpose to encourage, raise up and respond to non-believers. However, I do not feel like dramatic publication will increase a church’s attendance or to save the unsaved.

    Your writing appears proficient and your comprehension on topics impressive. However, there is a scripture you may find encouraging in not only your daily walk but professional pursuits as a pastor . . .

    I’m sure you’ve read this

    II Timothy 3:7
    “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

    Independent Thinker

    November 5, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  10. re: Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right”

    I may agree with that statement but the reality is that many people do not. I believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman – a covenant of two under God. The reality is we live in a post-christian culture in the US and the church refuses to acknowledge this fact. I believe it is because to do so would be to admit our utter failure to live the life of Christ so that it impacts those around us. It is easier for us to legislate what we do not live out and I am convinced that it is not Christlike to make statements like this. The idea that civil rights are intrinsic to Christianity, where we have no civil rights (Eph. 5:21) and our goal is to love those who hate us (Matthew 5:38-40, Luke 6:28-30) is becoming a very difficult thing for me to support on a biblical basis when I see the call of the gospel is to die to all our self-rights.

    Again, as a Christian I strongly believe that marriage is between an man and woman. But we are talking about a nation of people who do not know Jesus and we are expecting them to embrace what so many of his follower can’t comprehend or live out – a strict moral code that they know from the divorce rate in the church we don’t really believe in. I know this sounds harsh but it’s true.

    Sorry if it feels like I am venting my spleen here – I have really struggled this past political season with the response of many of my Christian friends to the election, issues in my own state like an amendment to prevent kids in foster care to be placed with singles or co-habitating couples (in this case the local family activist organization said before the election this was not just aimed at gays but it was what was aimed at all unmarried people and then afterward the amendment was approved that it was a victory for heterosexuals). This season has caused me to go deeper and ask God what do I really believe about the words of Christ? As an American, where are the inconsistencies with my faith and patriotism. Is it possible to mix the two and remain true to my call as a Christ centered person?

    At the end of the day, I love our country but my call to be the incarnation of Jesus to my community must come first. I just can’t see Jesus doing some of these things we do on the right.

    I guess that makes me bi-polar huh?

    Shane Montgomery

    November 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  11. As I was reading the post again, I thought I would make sure my definition of civil rights is clear.

    Websters – the nonpolitical rights of a citizen ; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress – 1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. 2. the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.

    Since both definitions refer to two Constitutional Amendments I thought I would refresh my memory. For the uninformed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments deal with securing rights for post-civil war slaves and do not specifically address issues outside of race regarding civil rights.

    The real question is how to interpret these Amendments and their scope and limit. I am sure that as we see each election cycle, any talk about adding to our constitution brings sharp criticism. I wonder if that is what the political visionaries in the post-war America experienced?

    Shane Montgomery

    November 14, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  12. […] ‘Gray’ Standard of Morality” (for the posts addressing the afore mentioned categories, see Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right and From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality […]

  13. […] Continuing along in my unpatriotic and democratic diatribes, I do not agree with Rachel that discrimination was legally instituted based upon one’s sexual orientation, or better yet, their sexual behavior.  A person’s behavior does not determine a person’s civil rights.  Civil rights are rooted within our humanity as people; rather we are white, black, men, or women.  Besides, the institution of marriage is not a civil right guaranteed in our Constitution and is an institution that is limited in other areas apart from a person’s sexual behavior, such as being unmarried, being of age, and marrying beyond the bounds of close kinship (see Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right).   […]

  14. The United States Constitution states the claim “by the people, for the people,” which shows America’s concern for society. Any right granted to a certain group of people consults the question: “How can it benefit society?” Throughout the years, many rights have been granted, including interracial marriage, due to the fact that it has a positive role on society, and people cannot help their birth race. People should not consider gay marriage a civil rights issue because homosexuality does not come from inborn genes; Homosexuals make a choice to be gay! Society should not have to pay for immoral choices.
    SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! (PERIOD!!!). UGh…i know that the majority of those supporting gay marriage know that they are twisting the truth, they feel uncomfortable when they post replies defending gay marrigae because if it was so natural, how come u have never heard of a male and male naturally producing a child. Ya n whateva…i knw that there are men and women that can’t produce kids because of healthe reasons but the fact that 2 men or two women can’t produce children together, shows that somethong is definitely wrong with HOMOSEXUALITY as a whole!


    November 30, 2008 at 6:12 am

  15. […] Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right […]

  16. […] Settling the Issue:  Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right  […]

  17. […] Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right […]

  18. […] Settling the Issue:  Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right […]

  19. […] Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right  […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: