Earlier today, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the United Stated Government on the Constitutionality of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Historically speaking, marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. The federal government grants over 200 separate privileges to married couples, from real estate and property rights, healthcare decision making, tax breaks and other similar benefits. Massachusetts is the first to file suit contesting the constitutionality of DOMA. I predicted this would happen shortly after California's Prop 8 decision.
In contemporary times, we have seen a harsh battle between the Religious Right and the Liberal Left on the issue of gay marriage. Leviticus vs 1 Corinthians 13. How can a book so disputed and yes, controversial be actually used in thie debate? Yes, I am aware that God "created" Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. We are bringing religious bias into a question of equal or not. Now, DOMA does not provide for a religious interpretation, not does it use any type of religious citation in its text. This is not and cannot be approached as a Religious Freedoms/Separation of Church and State question. This must be viewed in a context of Equal Protection.
As section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many of you could argue that this does not deprive life, liberty or property. It's just marriage...is it not? What's next? As some comments on Yahoo's discussion boards tonight have suggested, gays should be killed, gays should stop protesting, gays should never be teachers. Come on folks! This are real people, just like you and me. To deny them any rights on the basis of their sexual orientation is just wrong. The way I see it, either abolish all tax breaks and legal rights for married couples, or recognize and ALLOW gay marriage to happen.
Going along the logic of my fire and brimstone counterparts, I guess all of the antiabortion protesters need to stop "pushing their agenda". Even as a medical professional, I find the images of a dead fetus disturbing. Especially when I'm returning home on a Sunday morning from getting a newspaper and a cup of coffee...seriously, did I really need to see an enlarged picture of a dead fetus with "Babies Killed Here" on a picket sign in front of my local hospital? This is about COMMON SENSE. It's a good read too, I think Thomas Paine had a good start...
As I hinted at in my Separate but Equal post in June, it is my firm belief that Brown v Board's decision has been reversed, and that separate, in the minds of the religious right, is indeed equal. This has become an argument that will inevitably become a David vs Goliath affair (pun intended). We have failed to love our fellow man, our fellow man is "not created equal", and we sure as hell don't seem to have unalienable rights.
Yes, this may be a bit liberal for many of you to stomach, and frankly, I welcome commentary on this. I ask for CIVILITY and MATURITY. Calling someone a "fuckhead" because they don't think the same way you do will not be tolerated.
So, everyone, what's the next step? Is this one step forward, or two steps back? Will equality or religiosity reign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem in this argument is that the underlying intentions of voters (and, more poignantly, politicians) are largely impossible to discern.
ReplyDeleteEven to people who claim that they oppose same-sex marriage on institutional grounds, that certainly doesn't prevent them from being opposed to it on religious grounds as well. Even think-tanks like the ironically-named Discovery Institute have presented secular arguments against gay marriage ... later admitting that their bias is derived from religious sources.
If this country actually separated its religion from its government, this wouldn't be an argument, because no sane person can point out a legitimate secular argument against homosexuality or same-sex marriage. But even days ago, President Obama said to a Catholic group that he struggles between his concern for the gay and lesbian community, and his devotion to his religion. How then, exactly, can we argue that religion isn't influencing decisions?
I applaud Massachusetts for their move, and I hope more states follow suit. However, I believe we still have quite a way to go before this fight is anywhere near over.
Shannon,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, it is impossible to determine the intent of the voters, and whatever bias influenced them.
It is, however impossible to eliminate all bias from society. All of our thoughts and actions are weighed, whether on a moral, ethical or religious scale. One of the more difficult arguments to overcome in this situation is that of Religion versus Politics and the need to untangle the two.
The "sacred institution of marriage" is vested in religious grounds. How sacred is a prearranged marriage? How sacred is something that ends in divorce? Lets face the facts, divorces outweigh annulments by an extreme margin. Divorce is a social act, annulment is a religious one...very interesting to say the least.
As I said before...this one's going to be interesting...
"our father, who art in kevin"
ReplyDeleteBob, we're not talking about Priest and Altar Boys...
ReplyDelete