|
Legal
Discrimination
March
6, 2004
By Dylan Walker
Give me one really good reason why gay people aren't entitled
to the same rights and privileges as straight people. Just
one. One really good one.
Is it not true that some Americans are homosexual? And is
it not also true that the Constitution clearly states that
all Americans are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness"? Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant rights
to Americans and states "with exception to homosexuals." Nowhere.
So how come two people of the same sex cannot get married?
Are gays not capable of loving or being loved?
So why is it gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Beause
God said so? Which god are we talking about? The Christian
god? The Muslim god? The Hindu gods? What about the people
that believe god lives in the tail of a comet?
Considering the fact that way back in the late 17th century
Englishmen fled England to escape the King's religious oppression,
using the "God said so" argument is completely unfounded.
Why? Because the First Amendment to the Constitution clearly
states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion." According to the Bill of
Rights, Americans are free to worship as they wish; speak
as they wish; assemble peaceably; we have a right to a free
press and the right to address grievances to the government.
So it would be logical to conclude that forcing the entire
nation to live in accordance with a specific religious lifestyle
is unconstitutional. And with that, any argument using religious
values against same-sex marriage is in itself unconstitutional
and completely stupid.
There are people that say gays shouldn't be allowed to wed
because it would undermine the sanctity of marriage. I suppose
a gay marriage would, in a Biblical context, damage the Christians'
concept of marriage. I can understand that. But again, the
government can't force everyone to live by a specific religious
doctrine.
I ask you to consider the possibility that not all weddings
are performed in a church, or even have a mention of God.
I also ask you to consider that any "traditional" marriage
ending in divorce is completely hypocritical - I don't understand
how breaking a promise ("to have and to hold until death do
us part") to your partner and God somehow preserves the sanctity
of marriage. Nor do I understand how getting drunk and being
wed by an Elvis Presley impersonator in a Las Vegas drive-thru
preserves the "sanctity of marriage," either.
In fact, I think this whole "sanctity of marriage" argument
is complete nonsense. Why should the act of marrying someone
be preserved for only one group of people? That's just like
preserving the right to vote to only rich white males. It's
completely ridiculous!
I'm getting sick of George W. Bush trying to force-feed
his "compassionate" conservatism down my throat. There is
nothing compassionate about telling two people that love each
other that they can't enjoy the same privileges as everyone
else, and without a good reason. His whole brand of so-called
"compassionate" conservatism seems like plain old conservatism
to me.
Bush's brand of conservatism is the same kind of conservatism
that once made it illegal for inter-racial marriages… because
it might piss off God. Bush's brand of conservatism sorta
reminds me of that same conservative movement that supported
segregating the public school system.
And it isn't bad enough that Bush & Company are the only
people complaining about the government being too intrusive,
but at the same time they don't mind the government being
in a woman's uterus, making your kids pray in school, and
telling you who you can and cannot marry. And it doesn't just
stop there. These people want to change the rock lyrics you
listen to, and the magazines that you read. They pretty much
want to control every facet of your life, and they want it
tailored to their religion. Why? Why would one group of people
want to control everything? I think it's to keep the general
population stupid. But that's just my opinion.
I think this whole Constitutional amendment proposition
to permanently deny a group of American citizens the same
rights and privileges held by everyone else is completely
and utterly disgraceful and pretentious, and for the President
of the United States to support such an amendment is really
embarrassing. The United States should be a model of democracy
and progressive thinking for the rest of the civilized world.
But instead our conservative leaders would rather live in
the 1950s… again. And that's just sad.
|
