Why Gay Marriage is Politically Important
Have I upset the religious base yet? Let me try it again. Why your belief in the sanctity of marriage is destroying the Constitutional Republic in which this country was founded upon. Now you’re upset? Okay good, then I got your attention. Let me explain why this issue is more important than people may think. It all starts with how our country/government is designed. No, it is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. If you are wondering what the difference is, let Wikipedia explain…
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
A constitutional republic is designed so that “no person or group [can] rise to absolute power.” - Wikipedia
Now, if our government is designed to work within the limits of the Constitution without the rule of the majority, then let’s look at what this Constitution says. More importantly let’s look at the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights also restricts Congress’s power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - Wikipedia
So, if we have a government ruled by the Constitution [law], and that Constitution has the Bill of Rights declared within it, specifically the one mentioned above, then we should be able to say that if our government declares that gay marriage is illegal, then it is in a serious violation of its design [law].
Any argument that goes beyond this, is ridiculous. First, the government is prohibited to rule by the masses. That means that it should not care whether you feel it destroys your sanctity of marriage even if the country was 99% Christian, because religion, declared by Thomas Jefferson, should be separate from State. The Constitution declares that even the 1% has just as much right as the 99%. The ONLY reason for someone being against homosexuality and/or gay marriage is because of their religious fervor. Nothing else. With that being said, why would we institute something that has any religious rationale in our laws?
Second, the government should only [by law] recognize marriage as a contractual agreement between two people concerning itself with the couples financial, tax, offspring and other legalities. The government should NOT recognize any religious connection with the act of marriage. That is why you can get married without a wedding, but you are not married, in the eyes of the government, if you never go to the courthouse and apply for a marriage license. So, why would the government care if your religion thinks gay marriage is a sin? If the government does not recognize the church in regards to marriage, then it should not care if two guys or two girls get married.
You may ask, “Why should any straight man/women care if they make homosexual marriage or acts illegal?” Well, do you like to be able to bear arms, or speak freely without persecution? Or, how about the trial by jury amendment, would you want only one person deciding whether you get life in jail or not? All these are subject to change if we allow this anti-gay marriage act to become law. If we allow our government to manipulate our Constitution for this issue, what is going to stop them with another, and then another? What if all of a sudden we wake up and no longer have all the rights that we so neglect to appreciate? Then it will be too late!
This is [by law] all of our country, and is [by law] no more a Christian country than it is a Muslim, Jew or Atheist country. We need to stand up against anyone that wants it otherwise as we all need to realize that the rule of law is not the rule of the majority, and it is not about what is common or about individual beliefs. It is about the law. You may not realize the need for this if you exist on the side of the majority, but everything changes, and one day you may end up on the side that is threatened. Even if you are not pro-gay, you should be pro-America, and that means you are pro-Constitution, so help fight for gay rights, even if you happen to not agree with their choice. Not for their sake, but for America’s.
Still don’t believe me, how about a Republican senator that happens to be an ordained Episcopal priest. John Danforth says it best in his book Faith and Politics when he says…
“If Christianity is supposed to be a ministry of reconciliation and has become, instead, a divisive force in American political life, something is terribly wrong, and we should correct it.
No one should presume to embody God’s truth… [the Republican Party does not have] …the right for its focus on wedge issues that drive people apart and that create “tests” for religious and political orthodoxy.”
8 Comments so far
Leave a reply
New Scientist
The Onion
Media Matters
Newsvine
Associated Press
if we have a government ruled by the Constitution [law], and that Constitution has the Bill of Rights declared within it, specifically the one mentioned above, then we should be able to say that if our government declares that gay marriage is illegal, then it is in a serious violation of its design [law].
There are many good arguments for gay marriage. This isn’t one of them.
For any of this to make sense, the “right to a civil (not religious) marriage” would have to be in the Constitution. All civil marriages (straight or otherwise) could be invalidated by the state tomorrow and it would be completely constitutional.
Damn, with all due respect, you sure like to go around and assert yourself don’t you? I have yet to read anything positive or complementary from you yet. Although I do like a good debate, I just think it can be done in a more respectful way.
Anyway, to answer your comment I strongly believe you are the one that is wrong.
What? We do have a right to a civil marriage. It does not say it explicitly in the Bill of Rights, but it is presently implicit in today’s policies. That’s how people get married and the civil marriage is recognized by the State. The religious portion of the wedding is not recognized by the State, and should not be any of the nation’s concern.
If you are saying that for homosexuals to have equal rights in marriage, there needs to be an amendment to the Bill of Rights for civil marriage, then I would say, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” -Ninth Amendment, Bill of Rights. This covers all rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
Here is where you are very wrong. I would agree with you, only if the invalidation did not show any bias toward straight or gay, or any other sect or group of people. The whole point of the article, is the Bill of Rights and our constitutional republic declares that we cannot have any legal bias to any US citizens. Period.
I will quote James Madison for some help:
Plus the only reasons for being anti-gay is religious rationale, and these reasons cannot become political as stated above. I am having a hard time with your reasoning, as they are quite nonsensical.
Damn, with all due respect, you sure like to go around and assert yourself don’t you? I have yet to read anything positive or complementary from you yet
I liked your cuttlefish videos.
We do have a right to a civil marriage. It does not say it explicitly in the Bill of Rights, but it is presently implicit in today’s policies
I would agree with you, only if the invalidation did not show any bias toward straight or gay, or any other sect or group of people.
If you agree that government can legally invalidate all civil marriages, how can it be a right guaranteed by the Constitution?
the only reasons for being anti-gay is religious rationale, and these reasons cannot become political as stated above
Being anti-gay and anti-gay marriage are two different things. There are gay people who don’t support the idea of government sanctioned gay marriage. Are they anti-gay?
Personally, I don’t consider disagreeing with you on the reasons for supporting gay marriage as “anti-gay”.
Sorry, you got to do better than that. You picked the only thing we had no hand in doing on purpose didn’t you?
Oh my god, why are we arguing over this again? The Government can choose to invalidate anything, if it truly wanted to, that is not worth debating. I am talking about being biased to any group of people, that is it. What does the fact that the government being able to invalidate something have to do with them being biased to another group when it comes to marriage? I just don’t get your logic. It seems you are trying to distract from the issue at hand.
What?! Give me one good reason to be anti-gay marriage, and give me a break about gays being anti-gay marriage. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. They may not be active in trying to advocate gay marriage because they don’t care about it, but that is different then saying they should not have the right to marriage. If they are saying the latter, then they are either mentally disturbed or a Neocon. Either way, it is a mental illness.
Considering that we are disagreeing about ridiculous political semantics, I will just say this one thing. By you feeling you have to defend yourself against being anti-gay out of the blue even though no one said you were, probably makes you anti-gay.
Talk to you later.
This seems like an argument between two people on the same side for different reasons. I’m not sure why its so hostile.
Now my two cent on the issue at hand. I’m all for gay marriage, why not? I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that was anything more than either gay sex is icky, or its a sin, or a combo. It does hurt people at a minimum financially to NOT have gay marriage, and I can’t see who gets hurt if there is gay marriage. Its a very simple argument but it works for me.
I can’t believe this is still an issue - it’s ridiculous! How can the government tell you who you can or cannot marry? As long as both parties are consenting adults, whose business is it anyway? If the churches don’t like it, then let them refuse to perform their religious ceremonies. But in a civil matter like this, there is no reason whatsoever to deny marriage to two consenting legal adults of sound mind.
And if we’re going to talk “immoral” - please - let’s make it illegal for 19 year old Playboy Bunnies to marry 80 year old millionaires. If that doesn’t defile the “sanctity of marriage” I don’t know what does!
I think you can put “who wants to marry a millionaire” in the same category.