I know I'm gonna to take some heat for this one, probably from all sides, but you should never leave things unsaid just because people will disagree with you. I try to be fair, open and honest in my writings, and it would be wrong to hold back for fear that some will be upset by what I have to say. I've always said, anyone who would turn away from a person because they disagree on 1 issue, is not worth the effort it would take to please.
I want to start by saying that I
do not believe marriage is a right. I believe that marriage is a serious,
lifelong commitment that should involve love and a willingness to do what it
takes to make the relationship work. And I also believe that because marriage
has historically been a religious custom, the government has no business poking
its nose into marriages as conducted by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.
That being said, I believe that the decisions made by the Supreme Court this
week concerning gay marriage neither undermine traditional marriage nor
infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights. I realize I probably just lost
some people out there, but if you disagree with me I ask only that you listen
to my reasoning. Here me out and think about this with me. You don’t have to
agree at the end, but at least make it to the end. Don't give up on me just
because I'm breaking with the traditional conservative stance on this one.
At its core, this issue is a
matter of the role of government. If the government allows gay Americans to
enter into a lawful marriage, it neither picks the pockets nor breaks the
legs of any other American. Now, if they begin forcing churches, synagogues and
mosques to conduct religious weddings involving same sex couples, then we have a
huge problem. As long as we protect the religious liberty of those who happen
to disagree with homosexuality, while at the same time ensuring that
homosexuals are not being treated unethically by the law, we will have no
issues as far as the Constitution is concerned. The government can neither
create laws that give preference to a specific religion or belief, nor prohibit
anyone from practicing their religion or promoting a belief. In situations like
this where we don't have a specific clause of the constitution dealing with it,
we have to ask, "What is the role of government here"? Well, we know
the government is tasked with protecting or rights. Those rights include Life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness. Choosing a partner (same sex or opposite sex)
and deciding to get married falls under the pursuit of happiness. To limit the
ability of people to freely choose who they wish to enter into a permanent
relationship with is to infringe upon their pursuit of happiness. They cannot
be truly free if they do not have that choice. We are also guaranteed the right
to freely exercise our religion, and to be free from forced conformity to any
religion. Therefore, it is also unconstitutional for the government to redefine
a religious custom, like marriage, through legislation. That would be a clear
violation of the separation of church and state. So, where does that leave us
with marriage? That simply depends and your definition of
"marriage"...
There are 3 types of marriages:
lawful, religious, and lawful religious. You can get married in the church and
file a marriage license, or you can just keep your marriage under God without
making it "legal" and allowing the government to delve deeper into
your pockets (although your spouse won’t get your benefits and eventually
you're going to run into a common law marriage anyway), or you can stand in
front of a judge and leave God completely out of it if you so desire. You have
a choice. That's what America is about, choices. That's all we have here, a
choice...
If your religious beliefs say
that marriage was created by God, and that it is a sacred bond reserved for one
man and one woman, you are completely entitled to that belief and your belief
is protected by our constitution (and I happen to subscribe to this belief).
However, the fact that marriage is a religious custom and its definition in
this case comes from religious teachings, means that not only must the
exercising of this belief be protected by the constitution, but we also can't
force this custom, or it’s precepts, onto those who do not freely choose it.
You can't force people to partake of the body and blood of Christ, and you also
can't prevent them from drinking wine and eating bread. You can't force people
to go to confession, and you can't stop them from praying for forgiveness. You
can't force people to observe the Sabbath on Sunday, and you can't prevent them
from observing it on Friday. These are but a few examples of the point I wish
to illustrate. Those who believe in God and His definition of marriage (again,
I'm in that group) must be allowed to observe marriage in accordance with their
beliefs. If they are forced to accept the secular definition and practice of
marriage, then their first amendment rights will most definitely have been
violated. However, people must understand that there is a distinct difference
between a religious marriage under God, and a secular, lawful marriage under
government. We have both, and both must remain intact.
It breaks down like this:
1. Marriage is a religious custom
through which a couple becomes one with each other, as well as God. All
religions have their own version of marriage and their own ceremonial customs.
At its core, marriage is historically a religious experience. As such, all
religious marriages must be protected under the first amendment, by which we
are guaranteed religious freedom.
2. Marriage is also a LEGAL
status. There is a binding government document, there are fees to pay, and at
the end of it all you suddenly get to pay more taxes to the government for
daring to enter into a committed relationship. It's there for tax purposes,
it's there for employer benefits, and it's there for dividing assets should the
relationship ever cease. This marriage is a far different event than a
religious marriage, but this type of marriage is fully protected by the notion
of "equal justice under the law". It is legislated by Congress, and
as such these laws and regulations must apply equally to all Americans. Where
government and legislation are concerned, everyone must be treated equally. The
government has marriage laws on the books for one reason only folks- taxes. If
it wasn't for the fact that someone decided a long time ago that when a couple
makes a lifelong commitment to one another they somehow owe the government more
money, the government would not be involved at all in our marriages (you can
say we needed a uniform procedure for employer benefits or veterans benefits or
life insurance or a host of other things, but the fact is the federal
government would have no incentive to get involved in establishing and
regulating marriage were it not for the taxes they get out of it). I don't think
the government should be involved in anyone's marriage, heterosexual or
homosexual. But let's face it, they're never going to give up the taxes they
get from married couples. I say,
if same sex couples want to sign more of their money over to the government,
let them do it.
3. Each of these marriages should
be treated as individual cases. No church (or other religious body) must be
forced by the government to change their beliefs or practices, and the legal
definition of marriage should treat everyone equally. The problems begin when
people advocate for one type of marriage to overtake the other.
As an objective observer, it
seems to me that there are two different arguments, two different debates
happening and everyone is convinced that they are one in the same, but they are
not. Understanding the difference is the first step to an objective solution.
It's really that simple folks.
Like it or despise it, this is an objective, thoughtful, and fair assessment of
the issue, and it's a position where both liberals and conservatives should be
able to find common ground. But there will always be people who want to argue
because they instinctively disagree with me. For those people, I have prepared
a few rebuttals…
Many look at gay marriage from a
purely moral standpoint. They argue that it's wrong, regardless of whether you
believe in God, and they want government to write laws reflecting that
sentiment. But is it the role of government to define and legislate morality?
Yes, to a certain extent government should be able to set some standards of
morality, however that power should be limited (don’t kill people, don’t commit
fraud, etc). It's one thing to promote (not mandate) productivity, kindness,
charity and being an engaged citizen, but it's quite another to tell a person
that they cannot marry or share benefits which others are allowed to share with
their spouses. Inevitably, someone always points out that biologically,
homosexuality doesn't work. I've even heard the argument that it is inherently
our purpose to reproduce, and so homosexuality must be wrong. Yes, it's true
that two women cannot reproduce on their own, nor can two men. But does that
mean the government should define and legislate "human purpose"? I
come back to my "role of government" test. It is not the role of
government to define our purpose. It is the role of government to provide
safety for us and our neighbors and our children, and to protect our personal
liberty, so that WE can decide for ourselves what our purpose is. The federal
government has no authority to define our purpose, nor does it have the
authority to refute what we decide for ourselves to be our purpose.
Let’s look at the view from the
other side of the debate for a minute. Homosexuality is a topic that many
conservatives have strong, traditional feelings about. Many of them draw their
sentiments from their religious beliefs, and others just feel homosexuality is
inherently wrong. There are also many liberals who share one version of those
feelings or the other, but do so less vocally. There are Libertarians,
independents and atheists on both sides of this argument as well. You can't
just attack conservatives and call them bigots for standing behind what they
believe in. Most who believe homosexuality is a sin or just wrong in general,
also believe (as I do) that to discriminate against or harm homosexuals is
absolutely wrong. So you can't just make the jump from someone's religious (or
moral) beliefs to their ethical beliefs. Just because someone believes your
behavior or lifestyle is wrong, that doesn't mean that they wish you harm or
inequality (now, if they actually SAY so, it's a different story). Making that
jump skews the debate, making it about false representations of people's
character rather than the facts at hand. Those who attack the beliefs of others
need to recognize that it does nothing to advance their cause, and it only
makes them look as if they have no real solutions to contribute. To make my
point as clear as possible, here are a couple of examples of similar instances,
having nothing to do with homosexuality, where we would not attack people for
their beliefs in an effort to force them to redefine those beliefs (you know,
that “tolerance” thing Libs are always ranting about in one breath and then
trampling on in the next):
1. We don't (as a nation)
persecute Muslims who believe we should be wiped out and that the Jews are the
scum of the earth. We have been attacked by them, and we've responded to that
threat. We didn't go looking to kill Muslims over their beliefs, we responded
to their ACTIONS when they chose to kill our people because of those beliefs.
You're free to think and believe whatever you want, but if you advocate for the
forced conformity of others to your will, and/or try to wipe out those with
whom you disagree, you've overstepped your boundary (obliterated it in fact).
2. We also don't persecute
Catholics for their beliefs on contraception (unless you count Obamacare). They
feel contraception is immoral, and to use it is an immoral action, but they
don't believe that we should make laws banning all people, catholic or not,
from using contraception. They also don't demonize people who use contraception
(as an entity, there are individuals that engage in demeaning those they
disagree with, but the Catholic church does not seek to persecute those engaging
in “immoral" behavior). If they chose to force their belief on everyone
else, which they do not, we would push back, because they do not have the right
to force their religious beliefs on others.
We don't (again, as a nation)
persecute Jews, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses or Baptists or Hindus or
Buddhists or anyone else because of a specific BELIEF. There are individuals
who denigrate others based on religious beliefs (especially Christians and
Muslims), but that does not excuse the behavior, and it certainly does not give
the government the authority to do it through legislation. People who disparage
the religious beliefs of others in order to advance their own cause are just as
much a part of the problem as those who wish to arbitrarily discriminate
against homosexuals. It is just as wrong to persecute and vilify a person who
believes homosexuality is a sin as it is to persecute a gay person for
believing it's not a sin. You can disagree, dislike, or not associate with
people, but to attack them, call them bigots, or push the government to use the
law to restrict their liberty based on their beliefs, is just as unacceptable
as doing so to a gay person based on theirs. I fervently disagree with liberals
on abortion, because I believe human life should be protected from the moment
those cells form a unique entity with its own DNA. However, I don't go around
calling liberals sexists or bigots or attacking their character in an effort to
delegitimize them, and I certainly don’t advocate that the government punish
them for holding that belief (sure I toss around "illogical" and
"moron" a bit, but I know name calling is not the way to win an
argument, and neither is character assassination). I debate the facts, and the
role of government, and when someone demands that the unborn be treated as less
than human, and advocates for the government to make laws accordingly, THEN I
react. You can think and feel and believe whatever you want about abortion and
life, but once you decide to take action against unborn children, I have
standing to return fire. I could spend a lot of time on this subject too, but I
digress. The point is, this works for gay marriage as well. You can believe
what you want about homosexuality and sin and morality, but only when you take
action against the rights of another do you become a fair target for similar
action.
To be fair, you can't make the
jump in the other way either. What I mean by that is, just because you disagree
with someone's "morality", that does not give you the right to treat
them unethically, i.e. telling them they can and cannot marry certain people or
at all. You may feel that John Doe across the hall is a dirty man who sleeps
around with too many women, but that doesn't give you the right to treat him as
beneath you, and it certainly does not give government the authority to
legislate his lifestyle or redefine his rights. People need to understand that
there is a difference between believing that an action is immoral, and treating
a person as less than a person. Yes, there are people who believe homosexual
individuals are somehow inferior or "defective" or something of the
like, but most of us do not. I'm not in your head, and I don't know what
emotions and feelings you experience, so I can't tell you that there is
something "wrong" with you. In my experience, every gay person I've
ever had the conversation with, knows in their own mind that being gay is
something they were born with. As far as I know, there's nothing to
conclusively refute that, so it's pretty arrogant to tell them that they're
wrong when we have zero insight into their minds, and no conclusive science
(again, that I know of) to support the notion that it's a choice rather than
something you're born with. If we accept that it really is an act of nature,
intended or otherwise, then treating gays differently based on their sexual
orientation is no different from discriminating based on race, religion or
country of origin. This is why I take such a Libertarian approach to this
issue. As long as you neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, do what you want.
In other words, as long as you're not insisting that my constitutional rights
be infringed upon so that you can have your way, I'm content to let you do your
thing while I do mine.
I reiterate, it is the legal
definition of marriage that is the issue. If there's anyone out there
advocating for gay marriage to be forced upon religious institutions, then I am
absolutely opposed to what they want to achieve. What I am talking about are
the government's laws and regulations, not God's. The simplest way I can think
to put it is, if you're getting married for love and not for show, then by all
means do so. If you're out to make a spectacle of yourself, to demean the
religious beliefs of others or to force your will upon others, then you are
part of a problem, not an advocate of any solution.
Conversations about gay marriage
or gay rights in general, almost always turns to what a properly functioning
family unit should look like. Some believe a family with a mother and a father
is best for children. Others believe that two mothers or two fathers do a
better job of raising children. As with most of the debates in Washington these
days, it seems everyone wants to claim they're worried about the kids. Sure gay
rights activists argue that they should have the right to choose who they love
(love and marriage are two very different things), and traditional marriage
supporters say they don't want America to be thrust down the "slippery
slope" to polygamy, incest and bestiality (we're a long way from a
slippery slope, common sense should tell you that two unrelated people getting
married and a guy marrying his goat, are completely different scenarios), but
both sides inevitably arrive at what a family should look like, and what's
better for the children. If you are a good person with a good heart, and you
have common sense, and you believe in helping others (without having to be
forced to help by the government), and you believe in being a productive,
virtuous, responsible, informed citizen, then I see no reason that you would
make a bad parent or spouse. If you're dedicated to your partner and your
children, and you love them, and you would do anything to protect them, then
your sexual orientation is irrelevant. The only problems I see with a same sex
relationship, or same sex parents, are the exact same problems I see with
straight couples and parents. It doesn't take a gay couple to ruin a child's
mind. Straight parents have been doing it for millennia. If we look at the
whole of recorded history, there have certainly been more straight parents whose
children have turned into bad people. Obviously the majority of people do just
fine raising their kids, but my point here is that to assume a child can't be
raised to be a good person by a homosexual couple is simply unfounded. It's
about what they teach, not who they sleep with. That goes for ALL parents.
There are certainly people out
there who want to be treated as if they're special because they're gay. They think they
deserve preferential treatment. They want everyone to look at them and cheer
for the fact that they are gay and not afraid to say it out loud. These people
annoy me more than people with no common sense, but there's still no reason to
legislate their behavior, after all there is nothing in our Constitution, or
any document, that guarantees us "the right to not be annoyed". I
think if society just acted like it's nothing special, like it's a common everyday
occurrence to meet and interact with gay men and women, these people might
actually get bored and get on with their lives, but who's to say? There are
also homosexuals AND heterosexuals who lead very promiscuous lives, which is
something we should discourage (not mandate) for EVERYONE. If you're not
selective about who you date and have sex with, there can be serious negative
impacts- mental, social and even health related (STD anyone?). Again, this is
true just as much for straight people as it is for gay people. The vast majority of homosexuals are not like
this. They just want to be accepted, not put on a pedestal and memorialized.
And furthermore, I truly believe that if we just let the marriage issue go, and
let people live their lives, most, if not all of those who feel the need to
make themselves the center of attention would just give up.
Some argue that if two people of
the same sex can be married then any two men or women can get married in order
to scam employers or the government for benefits. Well, that's an easy one to
diffuse. We have regulations and consequences in place for marriages involving
immigrants, and if something looks fishy there are steps that can be taken to
investigate the matter. The same goes for ANY marriage that looks suspicious,
regardless of who is involved. If it looks like someone is faking a marriage,
homosexual or not, there are steps that can and should be taken to ensure that
no one is committing fraud. A sham marriage is a sham no matter who's involved.
It doesn't take two people of the same sex to fake a marriage for personal
gain. That's like saying if we allow 20 year olds to marry 90 year olds, some
of those 20 year olds might take advantage of a 90 year old, so it cannot be
allowed at all. Well folks, 30, 50 and 80 year old people can certainly take
advantage of a 90 year old as well. In this case, the "it could happen"
argument holds no water (there are certainly instances where this argument does
apply, this is not one of them).
In all honesty, most of us debate
this subject from instinct. We have a personal gut feeling about whether
homosexuality is morally or even biologically right or wrong. And we tend to
get so wrapped up in finding the facts that match what we want, we can overlook
the obvious. It comes down to religious beliefs versus legality. Can or should
the government make churches hold same sex weddings? Absolutely not. Should the
government deny gay people the ability to buy, sign and file a legal marriage
license on the basis of sexual preference? Absolutely not. Government's job,
especially at the federal level, is to protect the religious freedoms of all
while not forcing anyone to adhere to a specific religion or religious custom
or religious belief. It can be done, it should be done, and I stand behind the
decisions made by the courts this week. You can choose to hate me for it, you
can choose to see that it’s possible to solve this problem objectively, or you
can choose indifference. It’s completely up to you. I know what I believe, and
I understand that the government exists to protect the rights of every
American, man or woman, black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim,
young or old, rich or poor, able bodied or disabled. The law must be applied
equally to ALL Americans, independent of arbitrary attributes, and the
religious beliefs and practices of ALL must be protected with the same resolute
vigor. If you remember nothing else, remember this: If we allow government the power to restrict the legal rights of those with whom we disagree religiously, government will eventually restrict our rights as well, under the same pretense, and who will be there to stand in our defense? First they came for the homosexuals, and I did nothing, for they did not share my beliefs....in the end, when they finally came for me, there was no one left to believe with me...
Let Government preserve the rights of all, but dictate the rights of none...
