I’ve been thinking about writing about this for a while, but decided to do it today because Lloyd talked about it today and said, “In the coming time, I very much hope to read about this issue from those whose lives I follow on their weblogs[.]” I wrote this before looking at the listlog:
Even if I were against gay marriage, I could never in good conscience support such an amendment. Why? Because it limits the activities of the citizens! It says what they cannot do. The Bill of Rights were specifically created not to have the government take away citizen rights or privileges, and I think we should honor that example.
Alright, there is one case in which there was an amendment that said what a citizen could not do: the 18th Amendment, adopted in 1919. Technically, it forbids the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor, but that’s just a roundabout way of saying that people aren’t allowed to drink alcohol. But you know what happened to that amendment, right? In 1933, it was repealed by the 21st amendment.
As to the actual question of gay marriages, I say yes. Contrary to what chicken little says, it will not destroy the fabric of society. Letting two people get married will not harm anyone. Their partnership should receive the same legal benefits as a heterosexual marriage.
Hey, but what about civil unions? Can’t they figure out ways to give them the same legal status? Sorry, separate but equal isn’t valid. Besides, if a civil union were to grant them the exact same privileges, then the only difference between a marriage and civil union would be the name. At that time, is there any further point to keeping the names separate? It makes no sense.
Another idea I’ve heard is to not use the word marriage for any non-religious partnership. Just an attempt at politically correctness that won’t please anyone. Again, what’s the point of calling them something different if they’re the same?
The only “valid” argument against same-sex marriage is religion. Yet, Christianity preaches against divorce and remarriage. You can’t get remarried within the Catholic Church. Yet, you don’t see the Catholic Church lobbying for a constitutional amendment to not allow people to remarry. Church and state are separate. If a church doesn’t accept the marriage, then that’s the church’s prerogative, not the state’s.
On a not so unrelated note, kausfiles posits that Bush’s announcement helps Kerry: “Why did Bush have to make his gay marriage announcement today, as opposed to next Wednesday? … If he wanted to run against Edwards, don’t you think he’d have waited and given Edwards the space to make his pitch?”
The aforementioned proposed Federal Marriage Amendment endorsed by President Bush states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
If you read carefully the language of the proposed amendment, you’ll see that it divides the world between married couples (consisting of ‘the union of a man and a woman’) and ‘everyone else.’
It does not say that the ‘legal incidents’ of marriage will be denied only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people – including heterosexual couples! The language of this amendment would write discrimination against ALL unmarried people into the Constitution – it could be used as a basis for prohibiting unmarried people from adopting, from cohabiting, and it could even be used to make a crime of ALL sex outside of marriage!