On Nov. 4, the voters of California voted to ban same-sex marriage 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent – a five-point margin of victory for the amendment to the state constitution. In Florida, Prop 2, a similar constitutional amendment ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, passed with 62.4 percent in favor and 37.6 percent opposed – a margin of nearly 14 percent. In Arizona, voters passed Prop 102, also a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, 56.5 percent favoring the ban to 43.5 percent opposing it – a margin of 13 percent.

Each of the ballot initiatives won by overwhelming margins – and for those who would argue the opposite with respect to the California results, I point out that Barack Obama won election by 52.7 percent to 45.9 percent, a margin of six points, and is seen as having a clear mandate.

The bottom line is that the voters and the process prevailed. The will of a clear majority was duly exercised vis-à-vis said initiatives. Yet, in the face of landslide rejections, the belligerence of the vanquished is reaching a fever pitch.

Columnist Anna Quindlen posits a scurrilous argument when she compares the rejection of same-sex marriage to anti-interracial marriage laws of the past. Her argument is without merit because she conveniently omits the most important point. Anti-interracial marriage laws, while appallingly egregious, were laws forbidding marriage between a man and a woman, color notwithstanding. Anti same-sex marriage bans are in opposition to man-man, woman-woman marriages – which no society in the history of mankind can point to as a successful component in the sustentation of that society. Same-sex marriage is in no way comparable to persons of different skin color entering into a heterosexual union.

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen goes so far as to vent his frustration and anger out on blacks who oppose same-sex marriage, saying their actions were “particularly galling and repugnant” because blacks themselves had suffered discrimination.

As I have written before:

Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a [chosen] lifestyle.

Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.

Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one’s behavior and being unable to change the color of one’s skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country. (“Homosexuality is not a civil right”; Sept. 25, 2007)

There were homosexuals and Klansmen chairing committees in Congress long before there was a black president. They latch onto the civil rights movement because their movement cannot stand on its own. They are only interested in using said movement to further their own condemnable agenda.

As I have also argued, the homosexual agenda is not interested in marriage unions, as such – it is much more sinister – they are committed to redefining the family, undermining the church and devolving the very foundations of our nation.

Rejection of same-sex marriage should not be viewed as a blanket rejection of the homosexual as a person, but it should be understood as a rejection of that which they advocate. Many heterosexuals who live together sans marriage take requisite steps to ensure relational safeguards consistent with being personally responsible. They obtain insurances and assign beneficiaries, they have wills, they establish legally binding instructions pursuant to access and decision making authority should they become incapacitated, and more.

These same options are available to homosexuals without a same-sex marriage mandate being forced on society. Blacks who subscribe to higher moral convictions are not xenophobic, nor are they necessarily anti-homosexual as such. Instead of advancing an agenda aimed at destabilizing society, homosexuals should enjoy all of the rights available to everyone living outside marriage, except the right to redefine marriage and family.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.