| Why would gays want a religious union like marraige as opposed to a civil union?
Marriage equality advotates don't seek a "religious" union like marriage. If you consider marriage to be only a religious union than i suppose they want a "religious-like" union of marriage. Upwards of 3 years ago, the New Jersey Legislature passed Civil Unions into existence. These unions are intended to provide to same sex couples ALL the rights and benefits of civil marriage and the affirmation of their commitment to one another the same as I committed myself to Andrea. Some advocates worried that by creating a separate distinction of Civil Union for same sex couples would lead to de facto discrimination of homosexuals (which would be in violation of the Constitution and the Civil Union law). In essence, the union would be separate but un-equal. Over the last three years, this has been shown to be the case. There have been countless cases of civil union partners being prevented from making medical decisions for their spouse or having equal parental rights that their union is supposed to guarantee. However, the social perception that their union is un-equal has led to de facto discrimination that the Civil Union was SUPPOSED to protect. So, now marriage equality advocates come back to the table to rectify these issues by instituting civil marriage for same sex couples. This doesn't affect the adherence or practice of ANYONE'S religious faith or force ANY religious body to do ANYTHING in contradiction to their religious observance, but it DOES protect equality for homosexuals.
Where did the government come up with the concept of marriage?
The concept of marriage predates recorded history. The Torah was revealed to Moses in Sinai in 1312 BC. So, this should account for the first 7 books of the bible and what they have to say about marriage.
However, the first recorded mention of marriage was in Hammurabi's Code in ancient Babylon (Iraq) in 1790 BC
Now I'd like to discuss the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. There IS some.
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is "one of the basic civil rights of man". Loving V. Virginia overturned anti-miscegenation laws nation wide that prohibited interracial marriage. The motive for this ruling was the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What does this have to do with homosexuals? well, at the time...nothing, but read this brief from the original ruling judge in Virginia:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
So, racial mixing was an abomination to God. I can think of something else that people say is an abomination to God too.
But, this isn't enough. Homosexuality, at that time, was a sexual deviance. a fetish. No one could fathom a life long committed relationship between homosexuals. no way, no how.
In 2003, the US Supreme Court overturned nationwide all laws criminalizing homosexuality. (much to the dismay of Texas) The motive? Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
So. Equal rights for blacks are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Miscegenation is legalized under the same. Homosexuality is decriminalized under identical protections. But, homosexuals are not entitled to the right to marry whom they want?
This is illogical. This is unconstitutional.
Now, what is the underlying resistance to same sex marriage?
If the right to marry is a basic civil right, and one believes that homosexuals are not entitled to the right to marry...does this mean that one does not believe that homosexuals are entitled to civil rights?
I'm not comfortable with that assertion. If the reason is theological, than from a legislative point of view it doesn't hold up. Marriage is BOTH a religious and civil institution. Atheists marry. Agnostics marry. Their ceremonies may not be religious, but their commitment to one another is no less than yours or mine.
It comes back to the perception of homosexuals as sub-human abominations. The State says homosexuals are NOT abominations. They are citizens with equal protection under the law. Theologians may no like what that means for marriage in New Jersey, but we don't live in a Theocracy. We Live in a Representational Republic, and the rights of gay people is to be defended as vociferously as the right to practice or NOT practice religion.
Why not let "the people" decide?
Finally, I'd like to address the common complaint on referendum. "Let the people speak!" "Put it on the ballot!" I think that the reality is that if it were put to referendum, it would fail. If it could fail in California, it could fail anywhere. Does this mean that it shouldn't happen? no. In 1965, if you put the Civil Rights Act or Anti-Miscegenation to referendum, IT WOULD HAVE FAILED! Blacks wouldn't have gotten the vote. Women wouldn't have suffrage. Perhaps, we'd have had slavery for another 80-100 years. Thats not the way a Republic works. To quote my brother, Robert (who was channeling Ron Paul at the time). It is a thing called "The Tyranny of the Majority". This means if you have two foxes and a chicken vote on who is going to be eaten for dinner....guess who wins?
What about my freedom of religion/speech?
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all citizens under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as the State Constitution of New Jersey. The right to freedom of religion shall not be infringed. This means that the Catholic Church, who has a history of discriminating who can and shall get married in the church for myriad reasons, may continue to do so without retribution or fear of prosecution. For example, if I am a Catholic, and my bride to be has been divorced, the Catholic Church will refuse to marry us or recognize our marriage because of the articles of it's faith. If this is true and has persisted to be true, why should civil marriage for same sex couples change that? The short answer? It won't. Religious organizations retain their right to discriminate on ANY basis...including sexual orientation. Likewise, individuals who are opposed to same sex marriage RETAIN their right to be opposed to same sex marriage. I, as an American, defend vociferously the rights of people to hold views that I vehemently disagree with. That's what is beautiful about freedom. It is when that belief encroaches into the equal treatment under law and by the civil authority that we disconnect. Freedom and Liberty are not up for debate. 'Liberty and Justice for All' is the promise of this country. It is the responsibility of each of us to defend that Liberty to secure it for ourselves and our descendants to come.
My final caution to opponents of marriage equality.
You have your opinion and will advocate on its behalf. I have mine, and I will do the same. When you go to bed tonight, think about this. If this issue goes OUR way, your life will be completely unchanged. You will adhere to your faith. You will raise your children in the same way you have the day before. You will retain your right to condemn homosexuality and consider it an abomination onto God. However, if this issue goes YOUR way, then thousands of lives in this State will be affected. Thousands of your fellow countrymen will be caused pain and immense sadness. Their status as human beings and as American citizens will have been decided by other people who think they are an abomination.
Liberty and Prosperity |
