So the battle has been won by the opposition of California's Prop. 8 but the war is not over. The big argument for the proponents of Prop. 8 is that of tradition. I empathize. I too believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The church has every right to disallow it in their organization. That opinion might be the remnants of my Lutheran upbringing. I have since renounced religion and regard it in the same way I view the Greco-Roman deities. However, my preference of what marriage "should be" has no legal basis. The biggest idiot at Fox News (which says a lot), Glenn Beck, keeps reminding his viewers that America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Well jack off, your stupidity just undermines your argument against same-sex marriage. A republic provides liberty and justice for all. Not for the majority, for ALL. Because we are a republic, we have natural/civil rights, not sociopolitical rights. The people are protected by the Constitution from the majority. Which brings me back to Prop. 8. Though I prefer marriage to be between a man and a woman, I do not support Prop. 8. As a republic, we can't let this law stand. Regardless of your belief, logic and jurisprudence of a republic dictates that the majority cannot take advantage of the minority. If the church refuses to accept it, they have every right. On the other hand, the church and its followers cannot Constitutionally stop same-sex couples to get married by the State. Keep your faith in your religion but keep them out of my laws.
You should be a Senator, John. Damn. You're awesome with words. Prolific got me speechless.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. Personally, as long as the unions take place between two, legally aged, consenting adults, I don't give a rats ass whether the couple is straight, gay, bi, or mythical gnomes.
ReplyDeleteThe laws of the republic carry their own traditions, the greatest of which is Equality Under the Law. I don't recall Congress mandating that application of the 14th amendment is subject to a determination of one's sexual orientation. Since the state requires and certifies licenses to be married, and thus extends and protects certain legal rights to couples granted such licenses, it seems rather asinine to deny equal access to that process bases solely on the gender of the applicants.
I do agree, however, that even if a federal law is passed legalizing same-sex marriages, churches should not be forced to marry same-sex couples. To me, that would be a government intrusion into our freedom of religion. So, in so much as religion does not have the right to dictate the rights of others in our republic...nor should the government be allowed to dictate to religion who they may or may not marry according to their own rules and doctrines of faith.
Dave - yes, we're in 100% agreement though your words were much more eloquent. Thanks for responding.
ReplyDelete