Yesterday was a momentous day if you care about civil rights in this country. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker, appointed by George H.W. Bush, ruled that the state can not interfere with the contract that is marriage, gay or straight and overturned California's ban on gay marriage that was voted on as Proposition 8. Ted Olson, who prosecuted Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings, was one of the attorneys who argued for Gay Marriage.
There is no credibility to any of the arguments for the state being involved in peoples personal lives. If you are a conservative, this should be a no brainier. You want less government and for people to have more liberty. Why should the state have any say in who you love and how you commit to that person.
For those who will argue that the judge is an activist who over-ruled a popular vote let me explain how rights work in our republic. You don't get a vote on rights. In a republic, even minorities have rights that are protected even when it's not popular. The court is there to protect your rights and that's what Judge Walker did. It wasn't popular when the courts ended segregation and Jim Crow laws. It wasn't popular when the court ended bans on inter racial marriage.
The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Please note who gave us these rights, the "Creator" (read God) and his vote counts more then all of us. We don't get a vote on rights. They come from God and they are not subject to popular opinion or referendum.
Chris, is there a reason you call it the Deceleration Of Independence, or is that a typo?
ReplyDeleteCan the state interfere with a polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriages? Marriages between persons and objects? Marriages between persons and animals? Marriages between persons and fictional characters?
ReplyDeleteDave it was a Typo, good catch... and its fixed.... Squid you know these are very different issues... it's a contract between 2 people expressing their love and commitment in a way that is perfectly legal in our society. The state should have no role in determining who gets to make that contract if their non contractual behavior is perfectly legal. Are you arguing that being gay should be banned? SHould it be illegal as is the other things you are comparing this to. If not then you really make no point as always on this matter.
ReplyDeleteChris, I don't think we're on the same wavelength. I'm not arguing being gay should be banned, or that gay relationships are illegal. I'm saying if people have a right to go to the state and have a same-sex relationship be called a marriage, aren't there a lot of other relationships that should be called marriage? Why should marriage be limited to gays and straights? Isn't human sexuality a lot more diverse than that? If the state denies other relationships the moniker of marriage, isn't that discriminatory? Why can't polygamous relationships and relationships between people and objects or animals be called marriages by the state? The state doesn't do it. Should they?
ReplyDeleteGood points by all... interesting the Dec. of Ind. declares that the "Creator" grants "rights" but that the people who are anti-gay marriage and/or anti gay use the "word" of the "Creator" aka - "the Bible" - to refute the legitimacy of all things "gay". Thank God (Creator) that there is a separation of church and state. But wait - if there is a separation of church and state - why are we allowing the "Creator" to influence rights (laws)? Is it because the creator is not part of any particular church? What would an atheist say? What would a Gay Atheist say? And dovetailing squids thoughts.. What would a Gay Atheist Polygamist say? Sounds like we might have anarchy if we carried the Squid argument forward...
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteA Great Day for America it is indeed. Thanks for sharing your opinion and being a clear voice among the noise. Marriage is about love and commitment, but it is also about equal access to 1000+ laws that go into effect upon marriage contract that direct inheritance, taxation, medical decisions, hospital visitation, rights to remains, and the list goes on.
Squid,
With all due respect, unless objects and animals are upset about how they have to file their taxes separately or are concerned about getting into ICU to visit their dying partner, I suggest we not distract ourselves with their "right to marry" today.
What would happen if there were a federal ballot initiative passed with a 2/3rds majority which stated that "Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman blessed by God." This would then be the basis for an amendment to the constitution. Perhaps then activist judges would be prevented from thwarting the stated beliefs of the majority of people.
ReplyDeleteNo one would deny civil rights to GLTB persons. Committed gay couples should have all the legal rights accorded heterosexual couples. They should also have the same responsibilities.