bannershelly5

 

Is N/A an optional answer for Question 6?

3
Posted October 21, 2012 by MissShellySays in Politics
They both got driver's licenses so why not a marriage license?

They both got driver’s licenses so why not a marriage license?

I do not oppose gay marriage for one simple reason:  the state cannot have services it only affords to certain citizens.

 

If we are to say that our society is one of tolerance (different races, religions, political views, etc), then we cannot then use a religious argument for state policy. You cannot say that the Christian God disapproves of gay marriage and therefore it should be illegal, anymore than a Muslim could say that God doesn’t want us eating swine and therefore pig farming should be illegal. Perhaps we should ban all commerce on the Sabbath! We cannot regulate each other’s beliefs. There are the Laws of the Lord and then there are the Laws of the State. We can try to evangelize to one another, but we can’t forbid other adults for having beliefs that are different that ours.

A sin is a sin. A sin is not a federal offense, a political stance, or a legal argument. The church preaches against fornication but it is certainly not illegal. In fact, we collect tax revenues off the pornography industry. Unwed parents get the same tax writeoffs and register their kids at the same schools. There is no person in charge of making sure mommy and daddy have matching last names on the birth certificate, so why is there a person in charge of making sure there are different genders on a marriage license? You are a citizen. You get a social security card, a public school system, a driver’s license, and a marriage license. You get to choose where you live, what you do for a living, and who you want to marry in your own little pursuit of happiness. The end.

No church, synogogue, temple, or other religious institution has to perform marriages for homosexuals. But if the state is going to be in the business of granting marriage licenses and marrying its citizens – it has to do so for all citizens. What we have been doing thus far is discriminatory. It doesn’t mean you have to like it. It just means that your opinion (or mine) cannot be the basis of affording or denying other’s rights.

Which brings me to something I’m torn over: Question 6. Sure, I want gay people to get married. But in a perfect world, my answer would be N/A because I know that my personal opinion on gay marriage is completely irrelevant. I’m pissed off that I’m being asked this question. I object to this bullshit ass question!

Why? Because civil rights issues should NOT be settled at the polls. This is not a matter of political or public policy. This is a matter of certain individuals being excluded from a state service. Gay people pay taxes, serve jury duty, etc. We don’t have separate classes of citizenship, so clearly they should be afforded all the rights and privileges that the rest of us have. We don’t get to VOTE on whether other people can have the same rights as us. They simply are supposed to be granted those rights.

The reason that Civil Rights issues are not historically settled by pure democracy, is that in a democratic society we have to always be mindful of not allowing the majority to tyrannize the minority. We don’t get to just vote away things we don’t like. There are basic citizenship rights that everyone gets. Would schools have been desegregated if it had been a ballot question? Women’s suffrage? Interracial marriage? No – these things were settled in legislature, not the polls. Public opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fair and equitable treatment under the law. No one is saying that you personally have to attend gay weddings and give them your blessing. I recommend you do not send them any wedding gifts. You have the absolute right to your opinion and you can exclude all the gays of America from attending Thanksgiving at your house.

If our society was functioning as it is supposed to, the issue of gay marriage would be settled in the Supreme Court. Adam and Steve would sue their respective state for denying them a marriage license. The Supreme Court would look at the situation objectively and say “Adam and Steve are citizens. States cannot deny services to only certain citizens. The end.” And then Adam and Steve could go the the courthouse or some progressive church/synagogue/temple, get married, and continue to have no effect on your life.

Remember what Dr. King said – “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

3 Comments


  1.  



Leave a Response


(required)