Gay Marriage — and Other Issues
We have reports today that the California Supreme Court has overturned a voter-enacted law that prohibits marriage between persons of the same gender in that state. While I certainly congratulate the people who want to get married in their new-found ability to do so, I believe that this issue tells us so much more about our society.
On the subject of gay marriage itself, I ask what business it is of mine of just whom gets married to whom. I am a heterosexual, and I am quite in love with another person who happens to be a woman. I understand that a significant percentage of our population is homosexual, and thus generally attracted to persons of the same gender. If I were in love with a particular person, I would not be happy to be told that I would not be able to marry them, and in fact, be encouraged to find someone else to love and get married to. In the case of my gay friends, I would certainly not expect them to abandon their mates just because someone else believed that it would not be appropriate to be married. In other words, who am I to tell another person who they are to be allowed to marry.
Some people will argue with me that if we allow men to marry men or women to marry women, then we would eventually need to allow people to marry children or animals or whatever. This is not a reasonable argument. Our US constitution gives all adult people the same rights. An animal is not a person, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously proposing giving animals equal rights as people. To make this argument is only to confuse the issue that all persons, men and women alike, should be allowed the same rights. Unless the person making this suggestion is also proposing that men and women should not have equal rights. Some will also argue that this ruling will be the start of allowing adults to marry children. I can certainly not condone adults mating with children, and the fact we want to give all adults equal rights should not be confused with the also-important issue of protecting our children from predatory adults.
There is another issue here. Some will argue that since the voters originally enacted this ban on gay marriage, that the court is somehow overriding “the will of the people.” This case highlights the reason that the judicial branch of the government was enshrined in the Constitution. At various times in US history, it was the will of the majority of the people that certain races of people have fewer rights, that people who practice certain religions have fewer rights, and so on. It was true that a majority of the public wanted to see particular groups of people have fewer rights than the rest of us. The judicial system ensures that ALL people enjoy the rights of a free country, even if they are a racial minority or Catholic or Irish & Chinese immigrants or homosexual. “The will of the people” cannot be used to restrict the rights of the minority.
Another issue is that where certain evangelical Christians believe that allowing gay marriage is somehow threatening to them. I absolutely believe that Christians shall have the right to practice their religion in any manner they choose. Nothing in this law requires them to marry anyone other than the people they want to marry. If they want to restrict themselves to marrying persons of the opposite gender, I support that decision. Many Christians believe in spreading the good word of their beliefs. I celebrate their right to spread their word and their beliefs to anyone who is willing to hear them. I only have a problem when a Christian sect chooses to try to legislate their beliefs in a way that would REQUIRE me to follow their religion. I would not think of attempting to force members of their religion to follow the tenets of my religious beliefs. I would be happy to share my beliefs. I am not willing to try to force others to live by my own ethical code. I would hope others would not do the same to me.
I am certain we have not heard the last of this issue. Some of our citizens will try very hard to restrict the rights of their fellow citizens who they believe are somehow “below” them. I am rooting for the right of any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult that they choose.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I agree that consenting adults of the same sex should have the right to co-habitate with each other if they so desire. It always confuses me why some individuals think that “consenting adults” is the same thing as a “child molester”. Duh…the word “child” should give you cause to rethink that idea.
I don’t push my beliefs on others and it is disturbing when everyone thinks we should all believe in the same values. If I had to be put into a “belief-box” that fit everyone else’s – I’d go stark raving mad with all the bigotry and hate that flows from many of today’s popular religions. “Love your neighbor as you would love yourself” – empty words to live by? Or does it only apply when it’s for people who shop at the same malls you do?
One of the biggest arguments I’ve heard against Gay Marriages is that people don’t think these couples should have the ability to put their partener on their work insurance. If we work hard for a company, why should it matter who we put on our insurance anyway? If the insurance companies let us put one other adult on our insurance that would take care of same sex marriages, even the lone elderly parent who doesn’t have insurance. What’s wrong with that anyway?