Some gay rights advocates have heralded their movement as similar to the civil rights movement. I have voiced my disagreement to that comparison, but I do not deny that they have faced discrimination (just to a lesser degree).
Now this does not mean that I do not believe that there is no place for the discussion and legalization of same-sex marriage, but it does mean that I take a different perspective on the two sides of the argument. I think the gay rights movement is more like the anti-prohibition movement. To compare, we will start at the point of time when the prohibition was enacted through the 18th amendment and it is illegal for the sale and consumption of alcohol (for the sole purpose that gay marriage was not legal before the movement began).
In this time period, there were groups of people who wanted to maintain the prohibition, keeping alcohol illegal, because alcohol was immoral and harmed society (who can blame them if you have ever seen alcohol destroy individuals and families by alcoholism). The group that wanted to repeal the prohibition felt that alcohol was an important part of their liberty and pursuit of happiness (many use alcohol in responsible ways and find it an essential part of plans with friends).
To me, this sounds exactly like the gay rights movement. Religious people believe that gay marriage will hurt society, based on faith and testimonials of children raised by gay couples. Whereas homosexuals who want to marry and people who support them believe that being able to marry is an essential part of their pursuit of happiness. Neither side is wrong, but they each point out a specific responsibility of the American government: to protect citizens and to protect the right of citizens to pursue happiness.
This is why it is a reasonable solution to leave it to the states to decide, whether by just state laws or eventually an amendment that is passed by the people (like the anti-prohibition people got the 21st amendment passed). The Supreme Court jumped its bounds when it required states to not only recognize marriages performed in other states (as is reasonable) but to 'legislate' that states must perform same-sex marriages. Their duty is to check up on the laws not create laws. Regardless of the fact that the Supreme Court got carried away, it does not mean that everyone else should get carried away.
The right to marry is not a right protected by the constitution (as some supreme court justices tried to imply), as polygamy and marriages of children under certain ages are not allowed. But, as more and more Americans feel that gays deserve to marry, it can become something that we chose to include via an amendment. But, just as the enactment of the 21st amendment didn't require all establishments that provided food to also sell alcohol, the 'legalization' of same-sex marriage should not force all institutions that perform weddings to provide this service for same-sex couples. Will most institutions eventually perform those types of weddings? Most likely because that is the financially savvy decision.
Is this discriminatory? Not in my opinion. Many Catholic Churches will not permit me to marry inside their churches unless I convert to Catholicism. My Church requires people to not only be members but members who live high standards of worthiness to marry in our temples. The reason Catholics and Latter-day Saints do this is because of their beliefs related to marriage. Similarly, some churches still preach that life is better without alcohol, mine included. The 21st amendment didn't come and tell us that we had to stop considering drinking alcohol a sin or force us to sell alcohol on church property. It permits us to choose.
America was founded on the principles of religious freedom because people were tired of government forcing everyone to belong to the state religion and showing legal preference to one religion or another. Religious freedom is what we would lose if churches would be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. It is because of this freedom that homosexuals were even able to voice their dissenting belief on marriage and relationships (i.e. no one forced them to believe homosexuality is a sin). Liberty is at its finest is when we live in a community in peace even when we believe different things and live according to those beliefs.
Now this does not mean that I do not believe that there is no place for the discussion and legalization of same-sex marriage, but it does mean that I take a different perspective on the two sides of the argument. I think the gay rights movement is more like the anti-prohibition movement. To compare, we will start at the point of time when the prohibition was enacted through the 18th amendment and it is illegal for the sale and consumption of alcohol (for the sole purpose that gay marriage was not legal before the movement began).
In this time period, there were groups of people who wanted to maintain the prohibition, keeping alcohol illegal, because alcohol was immoral and harmed society (who can blame them if you have ever seen alcohol destroy individuals and families by alcoholism). The group that wanted to repeal the prohibition felt that alcohol was an important part of their liberty and pursuit of happiness (many use alcohol in responsible ways and find it an essential part of plans with friends).
To me, this sounds exactly like the gay rights movement. Religious people believe that gay marriage will hurt society, based on faith and testimonials of children raised by gay couples. Whereas homosexuals who want to marry and people who support them believe that being able to marry is an essential part of their pursuit of happiness. Neither side is wrong, but they each point out a specific responsibility of the American government: to protect citizens and to protect the right of citizens to pursue happiness.
This is why it is a reasonable solution to leave it to the states to decide, whether by just state laws or eventually an amendment that is passed by the people (like the anti-prohibition people got the 21st amendment passed). The Supreme Court jumped its bounds when it required states to not only recognize marriages performed in other states (as is reasonable) but to 'legislate' that states must perform same-sex marriages. Their duty is to check up on the laws not create laws. Regardless of the fact that the Supreme Court got carried away, it does not mean that everyone else should get carried away.
The right to marry is not a right protected by the constitution (as some supreme court justices tried to imply), as polygamy and marriages of children under certain ages are not allowed. But, as more and more Americans feel that gays deserve to marry, it can become something that we chose to include via an amendment. But, just as the enactment of the 21st amendment didn't require all establishments that provided food to also sell alcohol, the 'legalization' of same-sex marriage should not force all institutions that perform weddings to provide this service for same-sex couples. Will most institutions eventually perform those types of weddings? Most likely because that is the financially savvy decision.
Is this discriminatory? Not in my opinion. Many Catholic Churches will not permit me to marry inside their churches unless I convert to Catholicism. My Church requires people to not only be members but members who live high standards of worthiness to marry in our temples. The reason Catholics and Latter-day Saints do this is because of their beliefs related to marriage. Similarly, some churches still preach that life is better without alcohol, mine included. The 21st amendment didn't come and tell us that we had to stop considering drinking alcohol a sin or force us to sell alcohol on church property. It permits us to choose.
America was founded on the principles of religious freedom because people were tired of government forcing everyone to belong to the state religion and showing legal preference to one religion or another. Religious freedom is what we would lose if churches would be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. It is because of this freedom that homosexuals were even able to voice their dissenting belief on marriage and relationships (i.e. no one forced them to believe homosexuality is a sin). Liberty is at its finest is when we live in a community in peace even when we believe different things and live according to those beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment