A Few Questions on Gay Marriage
So right now two Republican representatives in the General Assembly of North Carolina have introduced a bill to put forward a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a Man and Woman. Given that this is a Southern state, I wish that I could say I was surprised, but sadly I’m not. This doesn’t mean I don’t continue to be disappointed in my fellow citizens and want to ask them to see if they have logically considered this. First and foremost, before we get into this, I will note that my general belief is that “marriage” isn’t a business for Government anyway. Marriage is a church sacrament and it should be left up to the Church to deside on whom they wish to bestow this sacrament. However, I also firmly believe that if you’re going to offer benefits under a civil union, it should not be restricted to just heterosexual couples.
Question #1: How will two men or two women getting married impact your personal life, liberty, or property?
While I could offer a flippant ‘it won’t’ here, I do truly have to pose this question. If a homosexual couple being extended the same benefits under the law as a heterosexual couple would impact someone’s life, liberty, or property, then I could see a reason for pushing through Amendments of this nature. I personally don’t see anything that even comes close to doing so, however. Just because any of the homosexual couples I know get married, it will not impact my marriage with my wife one iota. Our marriage will still have the same sanctity (if anything about my life deserves the ’sanctity’ title), benefits, and meaning as it did before a homosexual couple was married.
Question #2: Where in the Constitution do you find any other Amendment that restricts Liberty and/or Civil Rights rather than protecting it?
The quck answer for those who want to go scurring to the US Constitution is Amendment 18. The only problem with pointing to this, however, is Amendment XXI, which repealed Amendment 18. So as a net result, there is not a single Constitutional Amendment in the US Constitution that restricts Civil Rights or denies Liberty. Based on the Bill of Rights and the Articles of the Constitution, it’s designed to limit the scope of the Federal Government and to protect (not grant) the rights of the Citizens of the United States.
Question #3: What other societal changes in the past have resulted in a total breakdown of family structure?
The argument I heard on WPTF this morning that drew my attention to this topic was that if this amendment wasn’t passed, then what would stop two same sex people from claiming the civil benefits of marriage even if they weren’t really a couple? My immediate response was “the exact same things that keeps a man and a woman who aren’t a couple from doing the same thing–nothing.” Marriages of Convenience are not anything new in this country and I honestly don’t foresee them ever going away. The sex of the couples involved doesn’t matter. Other arguments of this nature were made during the Civil Rights era, claiming that interracial marriage would ruin the country and lead to the downfall of our way of life. I’ve yet to see anything of that nature happen, and I seriously doubt that it ever will. In many cases, this is simply someone projecting their fears on society at large and trying to stir up concensus through fear.
Question #4: Where in the Constitution does it place protections and/or grant special privileges to any religious viewpoint?
This is another of those questions that likely will elicit a ‘It doesn’t, but…’ response. At least most people will realize that the only notation regarding religion in the US Constitution is the statement that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. However, many people seem to believe that encoding religion morality into an Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the establishment of religion. I’m quite sure a Constitional argument could be made either way, but my personal preference is to keep someone’s religious viewpoint as far away from my rule of Law as possible.
Question #5: When did you make the conscious decision to be Heterosexual?
The main response you’ll generally get here is “I didn’t, because it’s normal to be Heterosexual.” At this point, I’m generally in the mode of just giving a blank stare in response to answers that make me want to shake someone until they wake up and re-engage the logical portions of their brain. There are documented cases of homosexuality occuring in the wild among animals. Yes, in many cases, those animals are either ostracized from the social group or killed by the others, but that doesn’t invalidate the argument that homosexuality is, in large part, a biological hardwiring rather than a conscious choice. Kids who are going for shock value and L.U.G.s not withstanding, I’ve yet to meet anyone who identifies as being homosexual who sat down one day and opted to be part of a sub-set of the population that would earn them discrimination, scorn, and in many cases put them in personal danger.
There are a number of other questions that could be asked here, but I think this illustrates my point well enough. In the end, unfortunately, this is a situation much like the abortion debate. Each side can talk until they’re blue in the face, but it’s not going to change the base opinion. Unfortunately in this day and age, there are too many politicians who are willing to pander to the fears and zealotry of their constituents in what they choose to introduce. The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from the majority, not to enforce the will of the majority on the minority. If I wanted that, I’d live in a Democracy rather than a Republic.