I’ve been thinking about President Obama’s [at least partial] answer to Brian Williams’ question last Friday about whether or not gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House. I have to say that I agree that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and not government “business” to be redefining “marriage.” But it is absolutely necessary to begin the process of redefining whatever we are to call the lifetime legal contract between two people that it is government “business” to license and which guarantees those two people the rights heretofore associated with “marriage.” Let us finally begin to adhere to the First Amendment and allow churches to do what they want; but let us also begin to defend the Constitution against those same churches. This is not a religious issue, and it is not a state issue.
I wholeheartedly support the Tenth Amendment as reserving to the states the powers not prohibited to them by the Constitution. However, the language of the Constitution very clearly does prohibit discrimination against any state's citizens by any other state. All citizens are one hundred percent equal in the eyes of the Constitution (at least more or less, since the Civil Rights movement), but government and the Constitution have proven many times to be two different animals. In application, it’s beginning to seem as though, to borrow from an old saying, nothing is equal but death and taxes. Church weddings aside, being a practice of the church and therefore out of the legal reach of government according to the First Amendment (along with their willingness or unwillingness to perform any such ceremonies), the actual legal contract binding two law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting, adult American citizens, whatever it's called, cannot, at least Constitutionally, be afforded to these two of the aforementioned citizens, and not those two.
In that sense, and in the sense in which I guarantee it to be perceived, it is no different than being denied the right to vote, or drive, or carry a gun. And it is absolutely no different in subjective foundation from the laws forbidding interracial marriages only a few short decades ago, until Loving v. Virginia (1967). The original judge in that case convicted the Virginia couple after they married in Washington, DC (because it was illegal in Virginia) and suspended their sentence only if they agreed to get out of the state. On appeal, he upheld his original ruling, actually saying: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." That sounds to me very similar to the arguments flying around regarding today's marriage issues. The problem is that no one belief is ever going to be stronger than any other. That's just the nature of beliefs, and of opinions, but the law still has to be the law.
The Lovings' sentence was eventually invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court, but they upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act, which had been in place for over 40 years (along with the Sterilization Act (OMG), not even completely repealed until the 1970s, not only banning interracial marriages but ordering the sterilization of everyone classified as "insane, idiotic, imbecile, feebleminded, or epileptic," used on a sufficient number of minorities hospitalized for different reasons, a precursor to the Nazi practice about 10 years later).
The U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the convictions and held that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.... To deny this fundamental freedom on ... classifications [then just skin color] so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens liberty without due process of law."
Do we really want to start that far back? Can we afford to be this slow, again, in realizing that, in our attempts to defend God, we may actually be committing irrevocable offense? This is wrong. My beliefs, my opinions aside, the collection of principles governing this issue was written down and has been defended repeatedly for more than 200 years, 221 to be exact, as of this June 21. We should give it more credit.
Case facts from Loving v. Virginia, Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999), 1999.
11 June 2009
15 May 2009
"Marriage" DEBATE is Unconstitutional
The absurdity of the stereotype(s) being perpetuated by the people and legislators of the state of Tennessee alone is its own blog, but let us begin with the bones of the overall issue.
How many of you are actually familiar with the 1st Amendment, or any of the Supreme Court decisions further clarifying it over the last couple of hundred years? Since the main ongoing argument I hear about it is the one about the “unGodliness” of it all, I thought that I would try to address this again, because many people apparently remain deeply confused and/or deluded about it.
There is plenty in the original text of the Constitution about equality. You probably know how it goes…that talk of life, liberty, property, “the pursuit of happiness,” etc. etc. Clearly, all of that is debatable, has been since it was written, and is never actually going to be afforded any minority group without a fight, even if they are American citizens and minus any Constitutional language suggesting only equality for the majority. Therefore, perhaps we ought not waste our time on that.
What typically confounds me even more is the continued involvement and influence of the government in the issue of “marriage,” particularly when openly founded on at least the interpretation of Biblical principles, and that of religion in the making and passing of laws regarding legal partnership contracts between two consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults that have no tangible effect on another living soul outside that relationship. The 1st Amendment, in other words, the first thing on the minds of the founding fathers when generating a Bill of Rights protecting the American individual from the potential abuses of government, begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ….” That should cover it, frankly. If it is true that gay marriage is so reprehensible due to its violation of God’s law, that makes it a purely religious argument, and the government has no business being involved in any way, shape, or form.
Presently, no law, no legislator, no advocacy group on either side of the argument, can legally force a church to marry or prevent a church from marrying anyone. First of all, do you really want to change that, and why? Why in the name of time would anyone open such a huge can of worms that will enable Congress to decide who a church, any church (listen up, Mormons), can or cannot marry? Presently, any couple wanting to marry must have a license, for a fee paid to their local government. If “marriage” is truly a religious issue, open to religious interference regardless of the practices of the marrying couple, how can we need a license we buy from the government? I was raised Catholic. I was baptized and received first communion and confirmation all without a license. And can anyone imagine the hell that would have been raised if the government had dared step into that and try to require one?
So, hypocrites, here’s the thing…either:
A. “marriage” is truly a religious institution, dictated by the Bible and the church, presently being unconstitutionally licensed and taxed by the government, and the church and heterosexual “property” it is being claimed to be, in which case every non-church-based marriage performed in our history should be immediately annulled and every “marriage license” fee refunded to the unfairly taxed individuals or their descendents, that whole practice immediately discontinued, and an entirely different system (and vocabulary) instituted for all people wishing to be bound for life outside the church; OR
B. “marriage” actually does not "belong" to the church; is, in fact, a legal covenant, guaranteeing certain legal rights and privileges to the two aforementioned consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults; is entirely outside the realm of religious influence, much less persecution; is exactly one of the certain, inalienable rights of every citizen of this country; and the church, and any such tightly pocketed legislators, need to just back off.
How many of you are actually familiar with the 1st Amendment, or any of the Supreme Court decisions further clarifying it over the last couple of hundred years? Since the main ongoing argument I hear about it is the one about the “unGodliness” of it all, I thought that I would try to address this again, because many people apparently remain deeply confused and/or deluded about it.
There is plenty in the original text of the Constitution about equality. You probably know how it goes…that talk of life, liberty, property, “the pursuit of happiness,” etc. etc. Clearly, all of that is debatable, has been since it was written, and is never actually going to be afforded any minority group without a fight, even if they are American citizens and minus any Constitutional language suggesting only equality for the majority. Therefore, perhaps we ought not waste our time on that.
What typically confounds me even more is the continued involvement and influence of the government in the issue of “marriage,” particularly when openly founded on at least the interpretation of Biblical principles, and that of religion in the making and passing of laws regarding legal partnership contracts between two consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults that have no tangible effect on another living soul outside that relationship. The 1st Amendment, in other words, the first thing on the minds of the founding fathers when generating a Bill of Rights protecting the American individual from the potential abuses of government, begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ….” That should cover it, frankly. If it is true that gay marriage is so reprehensible due to its violation of God’s law, that makes it a purely religious argument, and the government has no business being involved in any way, shape, or form.
Presently, no law, no legislator, no advocacy group on either side of the argument, can legally force a church to marry or prevent a church from marrying anyone. First of all, do you really want to change that, and why? Why in the name of time would anyone open such a huge can of worms that will enable Congress to decide who a church, any church (listen up, Mormons), can or cannot marry? Presently, any couple wanting to marry must have a license, for a fee paid to their local government. If “marriage” is truly a religious issue, open to religious interference regardless of the practices of the marrying couple, how can we need a license we buy from the government? I was raised Catholic. I was baptized and received first communion and confirmation all without a license. And can anyone imagine the hell that would have been raised if the government had dared step into that and try to require one?
So, hypocrites, here’s the thing…either:
A. “marriage” is truly a religious institution, dictated by the Bible and the church, presently being unconstitutionally licensed and taxed by the government, and the church and heterosexual “property” it is being claimed to be, in which case every non-church-based marriage performed in our history should be immediately annulled and every “marriage license” fee refunded to the unfairly taxed individuals or their descendents, that whole practice immediately discontinued, and an entirely different system (and vocabulary) instituted for all people wishing to be bound for life outside the church; OR
B. “marriage” actually does not "belong" to the church; is, in fact, a legal covenant, guaranteeing certain legal rights and privileges to the two aforementioned consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults; is entirely outside the realm of religious influence, much less persecution; is exactly one of the certain, inalienable rights of every citizen of this country; and the church, and any such tightly pocketed legislators, need to just back off.
13 April 2009
Baby Seal Slaughter
I can't believe that the Canadian government still condones the brutal killings of baby seals. For my entire lifetime, I have railed against this horror, and still it goes on. Since fur is not even worth the energy of an argument, except to incredibly ignorant, greedy, and shallow people, the only "reason" I've ever heard is that it's the livelihood of the hunters. Obscene waste, greed, and complacency have become the livelihood of Detroit automakers and many bankers; that certainly doesn't mean it should go on unchecked.
These are BABY animals, sometimes just born. They are helpless, in the most literal possible definition of the word. It can't even be called a "hunt." They just walk up and beat helpless, harmless infant animals to death, and that's if the seals are "lucky." Sometimes they just skin them alive. My God.
Do you realize that these animals feel pain? Unimaginable fear? Surely, if you're among the policymakers, you've seen the practice with your own eyes, or at least plenty of footage of it, to have made any decision about it. Do you not hear the screams of the babies and their mothers, who fight to help their young and are sometimes killed for it as well? How can anyone with a soul let this continue. And yes, I meant that as a statement, not a question, because there really could never be an answer.
Nothing, nothing, nothing should ever go on just because "that's the way it's always been." There has never, in the history of language, been a weaker, less valid, more cowardly, and frankly less intelligent, reason for any practice. This is simply a gross abuse of our role as stewards of this earth and everything in it. It is torture. It is murder. It is WRONG.
These are BABY animals, sometimes just born. They are helpless, in the most literal possible definition of the word. It can't even be called a "hunt." They just walk up and beat helpless, harmless infant animals to death, and that's if the seals are "lucky." Sometimes they just skin them alive. My God.
Do you realize that these animals feel pain? Unimaginable fear? Surely, if you're among the policymakers, you've seen the practice with your own eyes, or at least plenty of footage of it, to have made any decision about it. Do you not hear the screams of the babies and their mothers, who fight to help their young and are sometimes killed for it as well? How can anyone with a soul let this continue. And yes, I meant that as a statement, not a question, because there really could never be an answer.
Nothing, nothing, nothing should ever go on just because "that's the way it's always been." There has never, in the history of language, been a weaker, less valid, more cowardly, and frankly less intelligent, reason for any practice. This is simply a gross abuse of our role as stewards of this earth and everything in it. It is torture. It is murder. It is WRONG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
