The U.S. Senate has defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That's fine. The U.S. Constitution shouldn't be cluttered up with social issues that should be defined by the states.Absolutely, and the people have spoken on this matter. According to results of last month's Washington Post-ABC News poll, when voters were asked about the most important issue in November's election, they chose the economy, Iraq, immigration, gas prices, terrorism and health care. Same-sex marriage merited only an asterisk, meaning it rated below 0.5 percent of responses.
Enshrining a social decision in the Constitution makes it a legal, not a political issue, and that should be done sparingly. We are still paying the price, in rancor and sometimes even violence, of the Supreme Court's arrogance in doing the same thing with abortion. Left to the states, most abortions would be legal, because that's where the weight of public opinion falls. And since it would be subject to democratic debate, it would cease to be such a galvanizing issue.
The same is true of gay marriage. If people don't want it, it shouldn't be force-fed to them by arrogant judges, as it was in Massachusetts. If public opinion evolves, the political system should be given room to reflect that fact. The point of democracy, after all, is to let the people govern themselves. [Emphasis added.]
Would someone please point that out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who said this following defeat in the Senate: "I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it. I think they are going to keep bringing it up."
8 comments:
Hi
I just wanted to comment on this:
"The same is true of gay marriage. If people don't want it, it shouldn't be force-fed to them by arrogant judges, as it was in Massachusetts. "
I disagree with this, as I see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. It isn't the place of one person to vote on, or in some way approve of, the civil rights of another person. It isn't right for a majority of people to decide what rights to bestow upon a minority. Historically it has often been left to the courts to protect the rights of the minority. As such, the judges have been wrongly labeled as "activist" when in fact they have just used the existing laws to protect the minority.
And to this -- "The point of democracy, after all, is to let the people govern themselves. "
I'd like to respond with this:
“If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority.” -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Thanks for the great blog.
/cb
Did you see Oklahoma's senator Inhofe talk about how proud he is there are no homosexuals in his family history? stuff like that is going to shock people 40 years from now. it will be like us watching strom thurmond argue for segregation
Hi Christine, thanks for your comments. I still agree with Hadden that this issue doesn't belong in the Constitution. It should be left to the states to decide.
I don't say this because I'm against gay marriage. I think a committed couple should have all the benefits heterosexual couples have today like survivor social security benefits, health insurance, etc. Maybe the gay community should start pushing harder for those things and give up the marriage rights push for the time being. If a couple really wants to be married, they can say their vows before God without benefit of a marriage license, which is simply a legal contract. I know a minister who marries senior citizens without benefit of a license because they would lose pensions, etc., if they have a civil marriage, but they want to be married in the eyes of God.
In regards to the Alexis de Tocqueville quote, if Washington voted according to the will of the people our country wouldn't be in the mess it is today. The omnipotence of the minority has been influenced by corporate lobbyists and corruption. They're not legislating according to what is best for our country, they're legislating according to their wallets.
Graeme, I read about Inhofe's statement. What a mean, hateful thing to say, and you're right, years from now people are going to be shocked.
Hi Kathy, I also agree that the issue should not be defined in the constitution. I was just taking issue with the "force fed" mentality. A marriage isn't "force fed" to anyone. Your marriage won't be force fed to me because I don't care who you marry. It's your business, not mine.
And the bottom line in all of this is that a person's rights should not depend on another person's approval or comfort level. I mean, I'm not terribly comfortable with the Christian right being allowed to speak freely. They threaten the separation between church & state, which I happen to think is very important. I don't like their behavior, therefore I should be able to limit their rights.
That's how this whole ridiculous debate feels to me.
I agree about the "force-fed" mentality, and you're right...who I choose to marry is my business. (Although I'm sure a lot of parents are uncomfortable with their children's choice of spouse!)
The debate is ridiculous though, and I think it leads us down a slippery slope. What morality sin will be next on the agenda? Will Catholics try to pass legislation preventing divorcees from marrying a second time? Will fundamentalists try to pass laws preventing people from working or shopping on Sunday?
Hi Kathy :) Long time no see, hope all is well.
Your comment ("Graeme, I read about Inhofe's statement. What a mean, hateful thing to say, and you're right, years from now people are going to be shocked.") made me recall something else I just read today.
According to AmericanHeritage.com, on this day (12 June) in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriages are legal.
What do you know, the world didn't decend into a vaccuum of moral anarchy after all, despite a challenge to the accepted so-called "norms" of the time. Who knew?
Hi Mike, good point about interracial marriages.
All is well here, but I've been consumed with family and work quite a bit lately. I've stopped over to your blog and few times and noticed you're pretty busy too. Of course, you have a better excuse than I do. Your daughter is a toddler and I well remember how hectic those days were!
LOL yes that's true - I swear sometimes I think she's learned how to teleport and hasn't told us. She'll end up down in the kitchen when I thought she was upstairs in the nursery.
Kids today...
Post a Comment