| The government does not have the right to tell people who can get married and who can't. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not affect hetrosexual marriages. Denying a subculture equal rights is un-American. (This whole issue is just a pitiful attempt by Bush to change the subject.) |
| Isn't the Republican mantra to get government "off of peoples backs" and out of our lives? What the heck is this then? Civil unions are matters of state and the government should grant them to any two consenting adults who choose to sign up. Marriages are matters of religion, and each church should decide for itself who's relationship it wants to acknowledge, ratify, sanctify…whatever. The U.S. Contstiution (Amendment I) stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" A law prohibiting a church from recognizing a homosexual marriage is a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. All of the arguments that are being used to deny homosexuals the right to marry are the same arguments that have been used throughout history to deny groups civil rights. Advocates of these arguments have always been on the wrong side of history, and they are on the wrong side of history now. In his 2004 State of the Union speech, Bush suggested (without specifically requesting) a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. The argument is that the courts have "arbitrarily" granted civil rights to a minority against the wishes of the majority. In the 1960s, the majority view in the south was that blacks and whites should be segregated. The courts intervened and forced the institutions of society to integrate. Would these same adversaries of homosexual marriage have advocated a constitutional amendment requiring the institutions of society to remain segregated by race? What if they had prevailed? In the 1860s, the majority view in the south was that blacks were fit only to be slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. Would these same adversaries of homosexual marriage have advocated a constitutional amendment requiring that slavery continue to be permitted? What if they had prevailed? Article Three of our Constitution assigns the courts with the duty of final arbitration over any law passed by any level of government. Allowing "unelected judges" to make these decisions is EXACTLY the American way. It is unimaginable that we would amend the constitution to deny a group of American citizens civil rights. Make war, not love! (Republican philosophy) |
|
Read what others have said about this statement here.
Use the section at the bottom of the screen to submit your own comment. | ||
| Comments | Contributor | Date Submitted |
| Good arguments. When you write "Denying a subculture equal rights is un-American" I would only clarify that many gays and lesbians are in a subculture by choice, however, being gay or lesbian is not a choice. It is a worse affront to liberty to deny equal rights to individuals based on an inborn trait. On the marriage issue, I want to add that the only really fair resolution would be for government to stop using the word "marriage", and finding another word or phrase to describe that unique relationship between two individuals that has benefits and responsibilities. Churches can perform marriages which will be accepted by the government, and people can continue to get legally hitched by government officials as well. End of story. They get to continue defining marriage as they wish in their churches, and equal rights can be granted to all who form families. | Tony Dallas TX |
3/28/2004 |
| Can anyone point to a single hetero marriage that fell apart because a gay or lesbian couple got married? I didn't think so. | Linda Denton |
9/14/2004 |
| This topic continues to baffle me. I'm as straight as straight can be, so I don't have a legal stake, yet, in this topic. Why are so many against gays and lesbians having the same rights as a straight people who get married? If a religion doesn't want to recognize marriage between those of the same sex, OK, but the government should NOT be involved in legalized discrimination. It wasn't that long ago that whites and blacks were forbidden to marry. Are we now going backwards instead of forwards? | Linda Denton |
10/5/2004 |
Submit your comment below | ||