Wednesday, May 6, 2009

"Traditional Marriage"? Seriously, what the eff?

Okay, you're a fan of "traditional marriage". Congratulations. You're a happily married heterosexual person.

I have no problem with that, as a marriage between consenting adults should be legal. You're happily married to the member of the opposite sex that you chose.

So what about the fraction of our society who happens to be homosexual, and the fraction of these people who choose to enter into a monogamous and legally-recognized relationship with the consenting adult of his or her choice?

Marriage, in the state of Texas, is not a "religious" institution in the eyes of the law. I know from personal experience. Instead of being married to the woman I was madly in love with, in the church I was baptized in, we got married in the courthouse across the street from said church.

The church did not decide when we could or could not file our taxes together. It didn't decide that my wife was allowed to use my name. It didn't decide that my wife was allowed to join my health care plan. It didn't decide that my wife was considered my "next of kin", and I hers, in the event of a tragic accident.

The deciding factor, in these events, was not the Church's blessing, but rather a piece of paper signed by an agent of the state...which was granted to us, after paying a tax to the state for the privilege of being married.

The legal denial of the right to be married to the consenting adult of your choice is a direct violation of the First Amendment, because it is based upon absolutely NOTHING BUT religious doctrine.

The three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) tend to frown heavily upon homosexuality within most sects. Fortunately, we don't live in a nation ruled by religion, but a nation that declares liberty to be the fundamental basis of our rule of law (see "First Amendment" if you have questions about this!).

Some of this nation's citizens would like to see Christianity be the basis of our laws, and to them, I'm curious...what version of Christianity would that be? Would it be the Christianity of my Southern Baptist grandmother, the Christianity of her Catholic son, or the Christianity of the members of the "Cowboy Church" down the street from my house? Personally, I don't think our laws should be dictated by someone who tells me I'm going to hell for drinking beer and listening to Rock & Roll music...or a man in a funny hat...or a group of people who feel the need to worship in a cow pasture, behind a sign bearing the catch-phrase of their favorite redneck comedian (with the apostrophe in the wrong place). All three of these groups agree that homosexuality is wrong, but can't agree on how to say the blessing before sunday dinner.

Most importantly, they can't agree with the two other major sects of people who worship the same God of Abraham but call Him by a different name, when it comes to whose God is the "One True God"...even though it's THE SAME GOD.

Fortunately, our forefathers saw the folly of allowing such things to dictate what is and is not legal, due to the simple fact that a religious majority would certainly infringe upon the religious freedoms of others who do not worship in the same manner...or, for that matter, worship at all.

If this nation's laws were based solely upon "Christian" ideals, there's a good chance that my Wiccan friends (a happily- and legally-married HETEROSEXUAL couple) might be burned at the stake. There's a strong chance that my Jewish classmates' WWII-veteran grandfather wouldn't be allowed to have a Star of David on his GI headstone. Unfortunately, my Wiccan friend can't have the symbol of his faith on his headstone when he dies...even though his religion is recognized by the United States Government as a tax-exempt religious entity. If that isn't a slap in the face, to someone who vowed to defend the very constitution being violated by this rule, I don't know what is!

Without digressing any further about the idiocy of US Army regs, I'll say this loudly and clearly:


Yes, the majority of our founding fathers were devout Christians (typically of the protestant variety). However, while liberty and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, they are not synonimous, either. This nation, being originally founded by those who were escaping religious persecution, understood better than anyone the importance of religious freedom...both the freedom to exercise their religion as they saw fit, but also the freedom to NOT exercise a particular religion as they saw fit.

Liberty is the absence of rule and regulation. There is no such thing as "pure" liberty, because there will ALWAYS be something that prevents a person from doing as he chooses. Unfortunately for some in this nation, it is ILLEGAL to use religion as a means to prevent another person from doing as he chooses.

So to those who wish to keep homosexual marriage a violation of the law, I ask you this:

What legal basis do you have, that does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, to prevent an adult from marrying another consenting adult of his/her choosing...regardless of gender?

1 comment:

  1. "Maybe you touch one life and the world becomes a better place to be. Maybe you give their dreams another day, another chance to be free." - "Birthday" by Cruxshadows