**UPDATED: Please forgive my horrible mis-citation. Madison wrote Federalist Papers, not Jefferson. Duh.**
As a preamble, I feel the need to warn you: I refuse to get into debates about the values and/or downfalls of any one religion. I realize that in discussing morals and base values the line between politics and religion can be blurred. Although I do personally find the religious right offensive, abrasive, and sometimes just plain stupid -- I appreciate the value of faith, and would never attack an individual on the basis of their beliefs. You would think that a faction so often berated for their beliefs would not attack others simply because of their love life. Since when are we a nation of Evangelists?
On that note, a law based solely on religious beliefs would be entirely unconstitutional. Have we forgotten about separation of church and state? Apparently we have. Check out our coinage, our Pledge of Allegiance, the mottos plastered all over federal buildings. I'm sick of it.
Some argue that the words "separation of church and state" never appear in the Constitution, and so there need be no concern over religious rule of law. Alright. How about the 1st amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It was the foremost concern of our founding fathers -- many of whom (religious themselves) came to the New World to escape intolerance perpetrated by ruling religion elsewhere.
If that's not enough, some may argue that the Constitution does not protect sexual rights. Well...
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Amendment IX)
How about the big one?
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." (Amendment XIV, Section 1)
I'd like to point out that any ban appearing in a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented and untrue to the original spirit of the document. The Constitution and joined Bill of Rights are intended to protect the civil liberties of the people from institutionalized oppression, not to prohibit so called undesired behavior by individuals. As shown in the Federalist Papers (a series of 85 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- designed to grow the support base for the Constitution during the failure of the Articles of Federation) [see www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/], the major goal of the founding fathers was to protect the people from the people, and thus the tyranny inherent in big government. America has been a haven for systematic intolerence only in our worst hours. Why should we revert to the days of segregation and the destruction of civil rights based only upon arbitrary categorical labels?!
If you believe that "it is wrong to be gay," then don't be gay! How is gay marriage hurting the country? If single parents can raise functioning productive citizens, then so can LGBTQ couples. Why is family planning a governmental issue anyway? Laws against murder for example, are devised because the act directly threatens the people. What is the threat of two people in love, who only want an official outlet for it?
I will not even justify the argument that individuals choose to be gay with a counter-argument. I merely ask: Do you choose to be straight? Hypothetically, do you think you would suddenly be aroused by members of the same sex if you chose to be gay?
I've heard people say that "if gay marriage is allowed, polygamy will be next!" This is simply hogwash. First off, I'm not sure how I feel about the intolerance of polygamy. But more importantly, our currently adopted policies concerning marriage are very specifically written for unions of two people. The laws can be immediately put into effect for gay marriage without any changes to policy whatsoever. Multiple marriage (MM- a term which is more PC than polygamy as that only applies to men with many wives and not vice versa), cannot be injected into our system. That would require multitudinous amendments and retractions to current policy, which would most likely take at least a decade to accomplish.
Furthermore, do not permit those who would ban gay marriage to call themselves "conservative." Conservatism is based on the belief that the government has absolutely no business butting into the people's personal lives. By calling themselves conservative, these haters (for lack of a better modern phrase) are merely trying to trick the public -- most of whom pull the lever for their party members without knowing the issues.
Not too long ago it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. I'm sure that there are still people in this country who disagree with that act. I'm also sure that their protest is strongly founded in faith. Does this mean we should ban racial integration again? I thought we've gone over all of this... SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a ban on gay marriage would be in DIRECT violation of the 14th amendment. By being married, straight couples receive many benefits financially and legally. I don't feel like listing them, so look it up if you don't take my word for it. "Equal protection" as named in the 14th amendment applies to all priveleges and rights allotted to the people. If one receives them, all must receive them. This country was founded on the belief that all political factions should be feared, monitered closely, and protected, whether in the majority OR minority. I've taken this directly from a Madison Federalist Paper (#51 if my memory serves me correctly).
Marriage should not be a legal institution. Let any two people be joined in a civil union, with equal priveleges given to all regardless of color, sex, age (as long as consenting), or any mixture thereof. If a couple wishes to have a ceremony outside of City Hall, let them use whatever place of worship that will have them.
So STFU already.
Did I miss anything?
No comments:
Post a Comment