Keep this vital fence up, senators: Pass the marriage amendment now

I find it ironic, if not a bit duplicitous, that this country highly taxes health risk industries to offset expenses directly associated with them - sometimes referred to as "sin taxes" - particularly the tobacco industry.

Considering the health risks involved in the homosexual lifestyle - HIV/AIDS, syphilis, other sexually transmitted diseases - just who will wind up paying for these increased expenses? Analysts predict that the immediate impact to consumers will be a three-fold increase for insurance premiums. And there are financial ramifications suffered by the community that go beyond the scope of insurance claims.

This country desperately needs the protections that the Federal Marriage Amendment would afford.

THE ISSUES concerning homosexual marriage are such that every citizen in this country is affected, although these issues are widely misunderstood and unreported. There is no reason to alter the legal definition of marriage, that of being between one man and one woman. The legal dilemmas decried by same-sex couples can be addressed adequately by any competent attorney.

There is an old African proverb: "Don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up."

The damage to society from unrestrained homosexual activity is devastating. You think the Super Bowl halftime display was shocking? Consider the public celebration that followed the overturning by the Supreme Court of the Texas sodomy law. The June 29, 2003, paraders in San Francisco were jubilant, many of them naked; the parade included hundreds of topless "Dykes on Bikes," and the "Sisters of Perpetual Motion" mocking the Catholic Church; a man simulated sex on a float attacking our vice president (a rocket with a phallic tip and Cheney's name on the side); a lesbian couple lay on the grass engaging in foreplay in public within feet of another lesbian couple changing an infant's diapers. Throughout the day, there was no attempt by local authorities to arrest the publicly nude, or even to curb their conduct. Is the East Coast ready for these public displays of indecency, exposing our families and children to this licentious behavior? Truly, the public is entitled to some protections.

BEFORE MAKING A decision on this issue, there is more to consider: Gay marchers often march beside the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization of pedophiles who hope to make sex between adults and children legal. They are allowed to march in gay parades because one of the focuses of the gay movement is to eliminate the age of consent all together. The words of activist Michael Swift - in which he promises society that "your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding" -are available on the Internet.

I write this in the aftermath of a recent annual provocative "health fair" aptly dubbed "Fistgate" - a government-sponsored event for high-schoolers in Massachusetts to explain and legitimize homosexual sex.

The attacks aimed at our children are dizzying. The homosexual activists behind these campaigns have made public schools in the South a priority in their nationwide quest to have homosexuality promoted in classrooms.

Why should it matter to you if our government legalizes same-sex marriages? To answer that, you must ask these questions: If a minister were asked to perform a same-sex ceremony, would he have the right to refuse? According to hate-crime laws, he would not. And what penalties would he face? Would our spiritual leaders be allowed to speak freely, without censorship?

Would parents have the right to protect their children, passing on to them their sense of values and standards? When our schools begin promoting homosexuality as part of their curriculum, will parents have the right to opt their children out?

Will we have to tolerate cross-dressing teachers and "fistgate" health clinics? Who will fund the "sensitivity training" that will necessarily become mandatory across the board? Will workers continue to lose their jobs when they refuse to sign agreements affirming homosexuality?

WITH THE SHORTENED life-span of the homosexual will come increases in Social Security benefits to surviving "spouses"; how will our already overburdened Department of Social Security meet the increase without jeopardizing those already dependent on the meager supplements for their welfare?

Opponents of the homosexual lobby are immediately vilified as "homophobic," a label designed to render our lives and our opinions unimportant. We are not homophobic, just realistic, patriotic Americans who want to see our country and the goodness it embodies survive. We want to see our constitutional rights preserved.

The idea of sexual activity being limited to one-man/one-woman marriages has been a fence erected in most civilizations. While there may be "fence climbers," even the climbers are aware that they have breached a significant moral standard. No civilization can survive for multiple generations after removing this fence; history has proven that any society fully embracing the homosexual lifestyle will cease to exist within three generations.

Will we rewrite our nation's laws to pander to this special-interest group? Reliable studies indicate that only 1 to 3 percent of people consider themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, or currently practice same-sex relationships. Will we, as Americans, remain silent on these issues while our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom to raise our children are being assaulted and even eliminated?

WHATEVER YOUR FAITH, it is incumbent upon you to contact your senator and urge him or her to pass legislation to protect this country and the rights of its citizens. We must have this amendment to the Constitution so that runaway states are not allowed to force their liberal standards upon us all. After all, we are not proposing a change to the laws, merely an amendment that reinforces laws as they already exist.

Georgia Sens. Zell Miller and Saxby Chambliss have it right; they are in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment (HJ Res. 30). But only one of South Carolina's senators - Lindsey Graham - is willing to stand against the tidal wave of the politically correct of Capitol Hill. Just what is wrong with Sen. Fritz Hollings, that he cannot vote to protect his constituents. As a South Carolinian, I like to think that my interests are represented by someone made of sterner stuff.

This matter is too crucial to the survival of this country for Hollings to take the middle of the road. Before retiring, he must mend this fence. After all, good fences make good neighbors.

(Editor's note: The writer, a North Augusta resident, is a volunteer for the Family Research Council.)