Second Wind

<< And I'm Spent | Home | Patch Day Cometh >>

Second Wind

I can't let go of this gay marriage issue. It consumes me, and I'm not even gay. Honestly, the impact of this issue, one way or the other, has no direct bearing on my life. I have gay friends who plan on getting married, such as they can in Oregon, whether the government endorses their union or not.

What bothers me is that this represents the forceful application of a religious belief onto the people by the government. Which is basically what this boils down to. A bunch of religious zealots aren't kosher (no pun intended) with same-sex marriages, and they are trying to use the laws of this nation to force this bigotry onto the rest of us.

They are trying to take away a person's rights, just because they disagree with their sexual preference. This is so fundamentally wrong that I can't believe it's even being debated.

Consider this quote:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (emphasis mine)

That was Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, during Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett (1943). Sounds like a wise man. I wish he was still around.

Our constitution defines some absolute rights, that aren't even debatable, and the free practice of faith is the VERY FIRST ONE. Our forefathers thought the freedom of religion was so very important to our country that it's the very first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You have the right to practice a faith that is discriminatory against gay people, and I have the right to practice one that says gay marriage is fine. In neither case does our GOVERNMENT have the right to outlaw either of them.

This is the same kind of stifling government that prompted our forefathers to flee England centuries ago. They fought a war to escape religious persecution. And here we are, centuries later, repeating those very same crimes against our own citizens. People are trying to make it illegal for gay people to marry, solely because it's against their religious beliefs. Sounds like religious persecution to me. The irony burns, does it not?

Print | posted @ Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:36 PM

Comments on this entry:

# re: Second Wind

by Just Someone at 2/14/2004 1:13 AM

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage in the US Constitution and there never has been one.

Fundamentally, when one seeks to add something to the law that has never previously existed in the Constitution or in the law (equality of benefit), the proper course is ONLY through the legislature, or, where available, the people through referenda. What is particularly morally disgusting, however, is the use of the courts to force that policy change, under the guise of "equal protection" - declaring that a right that has never existed anywhere in this country is, wonder of wonders, actually present in the Constitution or the law. What the Ma. Court did was rely on the Equal Protection Amendment of the State of Ma. of 1976. But it was never the intent in 1976 to use that as a right to gay marriage. Had it been,it would never have been passed as it currently is.

# re: Second Wind

by Beau at 2/14/2004 10:08 AM

There is no constitutional right to marry at all in the Constitution, gay or otherwise.

Passing a constitutional amendment to legalize bigotry of any kind is so egregiously wrong that I can't believe anyone would support it.

Beau

# re: Second Wind

by Mrs. Monday at 2/14/2004 12:21 PM

In addition to being wrong to outlaw gay marriage in my mind, the constitution does notm in any fashion, address the subject of marriage. Marriage has been a contractual agreement, and a religious union, for centuries. It has been an issue that is state delegated - they determine age, waiting periods, and means for dissolution. Why are we as humans (okay, religious, unwilling to accept something that we don’t understand, people) given the right to say what constitutes a loving and committed relationship between two people? (And please, don't start with that whole crap about if we allow gays, we would allow people to marry animals or Tupperware.)

The Constitution of the United States has been used to justify a myriad of things that it was never intended. It is thrown around and used again and again to justify personal points of view. And everyone knows what the Constitution means – because they heard it from somewhere or they read it in a Church’s newsletter or a political action group’s handout. If you want to waive the Constitution, you need to read it, study all of the case law surrounding it, and then present a complete and well researched statement of interpretation – even if it may be contrary to your personal beliefs.

In my opinion and my understanding of the Constitution (being someone who has actually read it and studied it for a long period of time) is that the right to marry is a state issue. And, as the 10th Amendment says (since the Constitution is SILENT on the matter of MARRIAGE, oh ya, it is silent on contractual law as well):

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Massachusetts State Supreme Court’s ruling is one that impacts the State, not the Federal Constitution. There is a big difference. If this issue does go to the Supreme Court of the United States, I would hope that they would refuse it because it is not an issue that should be addressed at that level.

Amending the Federal Constitution is a process that would take years, and it has been speculated for the past 10 or so years (hay look, I know something about the current status of Amendments to the Constitution) that it would be almost impossible to accomplish. I agree with that idea.

I hope that we as a forward thinking and progressive country (well, let me hope) will stop trying to punish people for their beliefs, their desires to live in a committed relationship with the person they love and cherish above all others.

I guess my bottom line question is “What does gay marriage have to do with your life?” If you don’t know any gay people, or you choose to not know any gay people, it does not affect you at all. If you are lucky like we are, you know some gay couples who are committed, loving, and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I just don’t understand how that can be wrong.

Oh ya, let me remind you folks that are thumping your bibles that the reason you can do that is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. You may have your religion, and I can have my faith and values. Thank you Mr. Constitution.

# re: Second Wind

by Richard Tallent at 2/14/2004 6:32 PM

Good post... I posted some of my thoughts (but not my political position) on my blog in response:

http://www.tallent.us/CommentView.aspx?guid=b2c8e3ac-4732-4ff0-b5bd-2af81bf93ca8

# re: Second Wind

by Just Someone at 2/14/2004 6:58 PM

Beau,

I stand corrected, I should not have used the wording US (Constitution) but it doesn’t essentially change my thoughts. Neither was slavery in the US Constitution. But, slavery was ended by a Constitutional Amendment, the ultimate expression of democratic will, so one is welcome to amend the Constitution to create a constitutionally protected right to homosexual marriage. I do not oppose that effort. I would like to add my thoughts to the debate and I do so without rancor. But, if blogs are expressions of academic interest, then, I think I might express my views. It is a subject that can do well without emotional polarization. In my view, the subject is not simply, application of a 4-3 seven panel state supreme court. I will continue, later. No, I am not Mr. Constitution but I am forgiving. With respect to case law, Meyer v. Nebraska ought to be reviewed. Meyer says:

"[the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry..." and so forth.

The point being, our society and our citizenry does have a vested interest in such matters.

So with your permission, I will continue later. Incidentally, if I read you correctly, is it your position that those who oppose gay marriage do so solely out of bigotry ?

# re: Second Wind

by Beau at 2/14/2004 10:35 PM

Honestly, I've been waiting for someone to come up with a valid reasoning for disallowing gay marriage, but so far it's been entirely religious-based.

Beau

# re: Second Wind

by Ian at 2/17/2004 5:36 PM

Today is a great day
that is if you're gay...
In san Fran you can wed
despite what bush's said
couples with two cocks
or both with a box
time to make it formal
soon it will seem normal