Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
 |
Gay Marriage
Should Gays be allowed equal protection under the law?
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
02/14/2004 (02/14/2000)
17 KB |
|
|
 |
 here is nothing I hate more than the tyranny of the masses. This is where the majority persecuted a minority, or where the strong attacks the weak, because they can. Quite often this is done through laws. Blacks are declared 3/5ths of a human being, native Americans are denied their property rights, Japanese americans were rounded up and interned, or in WWII Germany Jews are denied their inalienable right to property, liberty and then even life. People that support the tyranny of the masses, or bad laws that enforce such things, don't understand America or what liberty means.
America's founding fathers realized the flaw of Democracy, this tyranny of the masses, and that is why we aren't a Democracy. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on who's for dinner. People think America is a democracy because we vote and are democratic, but they are ignorant. We are really a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and those last two words are key to understanding America and Liberty. We vote to elect representatives (republic), and neither our laws nor the representatives are supposed to be allowed to violate the constitution, which declares that mutton is off the menu and that the inalienable rights of individuals (and equal protection under the law) are sacrosanct. It is this Constitution and our representatives that are supposed to protect against hate laws and "the tyranny of the masses"; which is any law where one group makes selective persecution laws to attack another group.
Of course a "Constitutional Republic" doesn't always work perfectly, as many Native Americans, Blacks and other persecuted minorities will attest; but it is better than the alternative. And it should work if the Supreme Court, Legislators and public are paying attention, are educated, and care. Sadly, history demonstrates that they often aren't, or are more motivated by politics and personal interest than morals, ethics, human rights, or protecting our constitution. But as Jefferson said "the price of freedom is diligence". Now we must pay the price and support gay-marriage laws.
There are many examples of bad rationalizations thrown around by the ignorant, angry or misinformed. But that doesn't change what they are doing. We either have equal protection under the law, or we do not.
It can be summed up by the often rewritten poem attributed to Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The point is that a German victim of Hitler understood what liberty and tyranny meant better than most modern day Americans. Now American is not WWII Germany, and persecuting a few gays (and denying them property rights) is not the same as genocide - but it is not a good direction to head in either. This is a slippery slope that we shouldn't go merrily skipping down, and an action that should be question and measured against our stated ideals or philosophy on which this country was founded. So let's look at the facts and consider the implications.
                  
Amazing how much hate can be built into words that are not said, and just implied; "No Irish, or fags, need apply". At least that is the underlying message. Who decides that? Why? Think about what that means!
A marriage in the eyes of religion and the eyes of the law are two totally separate things.
Under the law a marriage is a contract that guarantees certain right to their partners; like rights to property, taxation, benefits, inheritance, parenting (child adoption), health care and so on. There are many rights that come with the legal union contract that is marriage to the law. When you say that gays shouldn't be married under the law, you are saying they shouldn't have the same rights to inherit each others property, the same responsibilities to each other in the ways of property. You are saying that if one is dying, then a gay life partner shouldn't have the same rights in medical decisions as straight and married life partner, and so on. Whether the homophobics realize it or not, they are saying that it is OK to persecute gays because they are gay, or that we should go back to separate but equal, when the Supreme Court and society finally realized that there was no such thing.
Under the church, a marriage may be a contract between a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, or a man and a girl, or a man to many women, and so on. Many churches don't recognize divorce or second marriages; others allow polygamy (even though the law does not). Some churches recognize marriages that the law does not. The age of consent may differ between the church and state, as do customs and other practices. Look, according to some literal moral or religious interpretations sodomy can be be digital (hand), oral, or anal sexual stimulation; not to mention foreign devices. I think all Americans have violated someone else's religious principles of deviancy at some time in their lives; do we really want the strictest moral and religious interpretations to be codified into law? So once again for those not paying attention; a legal marriage (and conduct) is completely different from a religious or personal marriage.
Churches are about morality and beliefs, and they have the right not to believe in the sanctity of homosexuality. The same for individuals. I certainly understand if churches or individuals say that they will not recognize gay marriages, as a marriage - or if they choose to recognize something that the law does not. That is their right. I would not force individuals or churches to recognize a marriage, but the law is about law, not religious inspired morals and beliefs. Remember, we have separation of church and state. Our laws are not just the codified principles of the Bible, Torah or Koran, they are the rules of our society. They are the terms under which guys with guns can come and take away your rights to life, liberty and property, because what you are doing is such a threat to others rights, that society needs protection from you. What threat is gays getting married to others rights? On the other hand, denying them legal rights is not equal protection under the law.
Justice is supposed to be blind, not stupid. It is supposed to be objective (applied equally to all) not subjective (applied selectively to some). The point is that if two people have the right to make a marriage contract under the law, then we should not selectively exclude some groups because they are an unpopular minority. Just like if churches or individuals choose to not call them married, then we should accept that too.
Black and White : I understand that no issue is completely black or white, and we do have some restrictions (and should) for marriage. I obviously don't think marriage should allow two people aged 12 and 34, but that is because of the legal age of consent; the young are denied many rights under our laws. This isn't about pedophilia or perversion; this is about two consenting adults. Nor is it about mental impairment or other things with which we might put some restrictions on legal marriage. Gender preference is about personal choice, or moral beliefs, not about a violation of someone else's rights, which is the only reason we should be able to restrict marriage under the law. So while marriage isn't completely black and white, the issues ethics are more so. Either you support individual rights to equal protection under the law, or you support bans on gay marriage, but you can't have both.
 
Some claim that it just the name that is the problem; that a "legal life partnership contract" is the same thing as a "marriage", and would be fine with them. Somehow the name "marriage" holds secret super-powers that is violated by the gender of the appendage that is doing the penetrating or stimulating. As if sex act is the most important part of marriage instead of the love, commitment and responsibilities that go with it. They also ignore that many are legally married that have sex with other people including partners of the same sex, not to mention minors, animals, inanimate objects and so on; but somehow since they claim to be straight that infidelity is more acceptable in their eyes (or the eyes of the law), than being openly gay.
I don't think those people realize the hypocrisy of what they are saying and they are fooling themselves. Remember, "separate but equal" isn't. Already a legal marriage and a religious marriage are two totally separate things. But if it would make some feel better to ignore common sense and try to codify into law that a legal life partnership contract for gays is the exact same thing under the law as a "marriage" is to straights, and will have the exact same protections; and that you can not offer any differences to heterosexual life partners and homosexual life partners, then I would probably support it.
Of course that's not what is being done. Under the guise of protecting the name of "marriage" under the law, which doesn't mean anything other than legal life partnership contract with many clauses and which varies greatly by state, they are really trying to exclude gays from those privileges and punish them for performing the same perversions they probably perform in their own bedrooms (just with different plumbing combinations).
Still, if you could guarantee that equal protection with just a legally synonymous term, then I'd support it. And guess what would happen? The day after it passed, every gay or rational person would call those people "married", since under the law they would be. But at least the fragile egos of the insecure would be protected for a week, until they got pissed off because everyone started calling gay legal life contracts as "married", and then the moronically tried to pass another law making it a crime to call them married. And they'd probably have to pass another law to prevent everyone from calling them idiots. So I think it is an incredible waste of time and we should just leave the legal term married to mean one thing and have it applied to all, and leave the religious and personal term married to mean something else.
Many are claiming this should be left up to the state's to decide. I think they are wrong. I'm a state rights advocate on most things. Most of the federal taxes and programs should be removed and should be left up to the state's; the federal government should get out of most things they poke their noses into. But the exception is in human rights and guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Get them out of taxes and micromanaging our schools, transportation, labor, subsidies and about just about everything except their charter, which is national defense, interstate trade, and protection from the tyranny of the masses and protecting civil liberties and individual rights.
  
Some people like to get their panties in a bunch when you disagree with them. And people love to label, thus are ready to call me a bleeding heart liberal (or something less polite). I'm not. I just want objective laws that are applied equally to all. But just to help clarify where I come from, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm not gay, and do not support many gay issues. Not because there aren't valid causes (some are, some aren't') but I'm usually against such laws because the way many are tried to be passed is wrong, or because they are subjective laws of their own.
I was against gays in the military (as military law). I can defend why and there is no hypocrisy; the summary is basically that the military is not the place to experiment with social policy. The Military should be looked at with the perspective of, "does this law improve the effectiveness of the fighting force?" If it doesn't, then mind your own business and let the military mind theirs! And there are very complex issues that people have ignored like privacy concerns. I don't personally care if some gay guy sees me in the gym shower naked, and I don't like using open stalls with hetero's or gays, but until society can accept co-ed showers and restrooms, I think we should respect people's modesty (misplaced or not). Pass laws supporting same sex marriages in the public first, get society to adapt, then let the military follow (years or a generation later), not the other way around. The military has a job to do (provide national defense) and there is nothing constructive that politicizing or codifying "don't talk, don't tell" into law did. Gays have always been there, and always will be. I protect their personal rights, and after society has matured, then push for codifying it in the military. But all that politicizing it really did is cause backlash and attack a symptom of intolerance (homophobia) in the wrong place.
I am also not for many of the laws or policies that allow "life partners" to get benefits, when those are subjectively applied. In other words in some companies you can get benefits if your partner is a "gay life partner", but not if they are a hetero-live-in lover. Laws must be objective and fair; and that is not fair. Or in other words, gays should HAVE to get married just like everyone else.
I think life partner laws, common law marriages are bullshit anyways. If you want "couples" protection under the law then sign the contract and get married, if not, then you don't deserve that protection by default. I'd even codify into law strict responsibilities for having bastard children so that it was legally an advantage for both parties to get married, instead of the other way around. Not that I'm that big a fan of marriage, just that I'm that much not a fan of stupid lawyers and judges interpretations of things that aren't agreed upon in writing. I wouldn't mind if the state put a few different types of marriage contracts in place, or got a lot more intelligent about property laws in areas of divorce. The barbaric "man is always at fault and women always get the kids", should be replaced with more common sense. The point is that marriage laws should be improved and have options like codified prenuptials, rules of fidelity, terms of child ownership and responsibilities. Legal marriage is a legal contract, so make it a common sense one with terms people can agree to. But that would be too efficient and of course take away most of the divorce lawyers money-making ambiguity and misinterpretation potential, so we won't fix that. But I digress.
 
I don't run around preaching my views on every bad law that is being passed (or attempt to). If I did I wouldn't have any time left. However, I hold a special place for persecution and exclusionary hate-laws meant to attack minorities.
Not allowing gays to get married (under the eyes of the law) means that the law is now a tool to deny civil rights to gays, lesbians and their families. When they have a sick or injured companion then they may be denied the right to visit them in the hospital, to make medical decisions about the treatment of that person. It denies them adoption or paternity rights. It denies them inheritance and property rights. It puts special punitive taxes on them for not being married, or gives them special privileges. It can (and will) be used to deny them all the basic rights and responsibilities that a person should have with their mate. It says they are different, and should be treated different. At best it is bringing back the anachronism of separate but equal, which we know isn't either. At worst, it is a codified hate-mongering a sexual racism. No matter which, it is just wrong.
You don't demonstrate that you value freedom by protecting your own rights; that's just demonstrating self-interest (greed and selfishness). You do not demonstrate freedom by supporting laws that are tools of persecution and backed by force (or force of law) to make people do what you want them to do, or else. When you truly demonstrate that you value freedom and liberty is when you stand up and fight for the rights of someone (or some group) that you do not agree with, but prove that you value their freedom and liberty to do what they want, over the tyranny of the masses and making them do what you want.
For all those reasons I have to support same sex marriages as societal law because common sense and liberty should prevail over persecution and homophobia. And it eventually will. It may take us another 10, 20 or 100 years, like it did for slavery - but eventually tolerance will win over fear, hate, and intolerance. It has to. If it doesn't, the alternative is too dark to think about. Justice must be blind and objective for America to be "the land of the free", or at least not be the land of persecution oriented subjective fascist micro-managers trying to dictate how everyone else will behave!
All IMHO of course...and Happy Valentines Day to all...
 Restore Navigation  Mail
|
|
|
|
