In what may be one of my most controversial posts yet, I wish to address the issue of Homosexuality in America. Now, for the sake of this post, I am going to avoid the specific Biblical teachings and beliefs, which are so strongly held by many. I understand those of you who have strong Christian beliefs and I will save the specific Biblical arguments for someone else to make or for another post. Here, I wish to address this issue purely from the standpoint of our Nation's Constitution, which as you know I revere.
On October 12, 2010, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips issued a ruling which barred the U.S. Military from imposing punishment on soldiers, due to the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. In her ruling she said, the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment. I agree with her ruling.
This brings me to the larger issues of Gay Marriage and Gay Rights, in the workplace, such as health insurance and benefits for a Gay Spouse. Under the Constitution, how can we select a group of people and not allow them the same inalienable rights we as heterosexuals enjoy? I have struggled with the issue through my adult life, because I understand the Biblical teachings involved, but I also understand tolerance and the guarantee given by our Constitution to protect ALL people from persecution. It IS persecution to deny gay marriage and work benefits to people. The main reason most people are against these issues, is religion. That being the case, our Nation has ideals of not having laws in place that push one religion onto a person of another belief.
With this said, I also agree all Christians have the right to preach their beliefs and to speak their minds on this issue. Like the sticky issue of race, I wish this was an issue where we could sit down and agree to disagree and stop hurting a class of people, because they are different from us.......If we can't agree - let's at least be Civil.
Article from MSNBC about Judge Phillips ruling
And yet there is the public policy argument. Shouldn't we be allowed to promote certain interests/policies, reward certain behaviors? Do tax laws that give credits to people with children result in the persecution of childless people? Where in the Constitution am I promised work benefits? Because I want mine. Personally, I'm more of a "Live and Let Live" type person, but I have a hard time accepting that all of this is covered by the Constitution. Equal Protection does have limitations and some of what we do must be governed by majority rule.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, Brett, I should have counted on you for such a great point! "Majority Rule" is such an important part of our Nation's heritage, yet it seems to have been lost during the scamper for all things politically correct! I agree we must fight to keep the "majority" in charge.
ReplyDeleteAs for work benefits, just to clarify, I am only saying they should be allowed if such benefits are offered to heterosexual couples. Fairness, that is what I seek, even though I know the World is not fair!
You bring up several excellent points from a public policy standpoint, thank you for your thoughts!
But, we don't have a RIGHT to have a spouse. If that is the case, where's mine? Having a spouse is NOT an "inalienable right" ("Under the Constitution, how can we select a group of people and not allow them the same inalienable rights we as heterosexuals enjoy?"), nor is it an unalienable right. And, your are mistaken, it is NOT "under the Constitution."
ReplyDelete"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Emphasis added)
The wording is from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
God is the Creator and He is the one who grants unalienable rights. Life and liberty. God gives us life, not the government. God also gives us liberty (we are free to make our own choices;; it's called free will). The Declaration of Independence recognizes that with its wording.
Having a spouse is NOT an unalienable right. Nor do we have a requirement to have one.
Because I do not have a spouse, does that mean I'm being persecuted too? So if I have a boyfriend,(like a man may have a boyfriend and not be legally married), should my boyfriend have my work benefits same as a spouse would? What if I have a different boyfriend every week? Or multiple boyfriends. Do they all get my benefits? We would not be legally married just like a homosexual couple is not legally married.
Homosexuals are NOT being denied any rights under the Constitution. They have the same rights the rest of us do. Can show me where the right to have a spouse or lover is in the Constitution? I've read the Bill of Rights and I don't see that one there.
Bonnie T.
Bonnie, excellent, excellent comments - very well presented and thought out! This is exactly the type of discussion I hoped to create! Thank you very much for taking the time to present your ideas!
ReplyDeleteBrett and Bonnie, I appreciate both of you taking the time to address this issue from your unique perspectives.
ReplyDeleteYes, Bonnie, the statement dealing with "Unalienable" rights is in the Declaration of Independence and I used the term too loosely to mean "equal treatment of all".
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says (in part), "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
My hang up with the issue of the Constitution and the issue of Gay Marriage comes from the last sentence above..."....nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws."
In all 50 States, it is lawful for heterosexuals to wed, but if a Gay or Lesbian Couple wishes the same "relationship status" to be "legally" recognized - it is unlawful in most States. How can this be Constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause? How can one "class" of people be allowed a "legal right", but another class of people is denied the same????
This is my quandary. Explain the way around this clause and I will re-evaluate my position in believing it is un-Constitutional to deny Gays marriage, when laws allow such to non-Gays.
Putt, you know I agree with you! Being a wacky liberal, I feel very strongly about this issue. I've no vested interest in the homosexual community, nor do I particularly revere the institution of marriage. But the simple fact is that denying a group of people equal rights because of something they can't control is unacceptable. This situation echoes the Civil Right's Movement and the Women's Liberation Movement, two situations in which people who were being denied equal rights successfully fought and won those rights. Now it's the homosexual community that is fighting for their right to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law. To not give them these rights is indeed un-Constitutional, just as denying minorities and women equal rights was deemed un-Constitutional. It's time for the United States to honor separation of church and state and stop letting religion and moral bigotries dictate law. Other countries, Canada and Great Britain in particular, have allowed gays to marry for many years now and there has been no "decline in civilization" or whatever argument the anti-gay movement uses as a reason to deny homosexuals equal rights. So, no more excuses. We ALL deserve equal rights. Period. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "Done."
ReplyDeleteSteve, I think this is well worded and written. We are almost in agreement on this issue. However, I feel that the US Constitution exist to limit majority rule or “tyranny of the majority” and guarantee equality under the eyes of the law. The Federalist papers and Jefferson both warn about mob rule and that there should be some limitations. I think the Bill of Rights seeks to force equality even when it is unpopular. Would the civil rights movement have happened if majority ruled?
ReplyDeleteI also think some are confused on the term "rights". Just because we have the right, does not mean the government is to provide. We have the right to bear arms. Does that mean the government is going to provide me with a new rifle? No, instead my free will to acquire one is not restricted and I am given the same equal chance as everybody else. That is equality and is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Also, I see the Biblical theory on homosexuality but, where does scientific theory fit into this? More specifically evolutionary theory and Darwin. Humans do not evolve without procreation. Just thought I would throw that one out there.
Steve, with all that said, I agree with you on this issue.
If we use the argument "nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws" for homosexuals, then why can't somebody marry a 10 year old? Or marry multiple spouses? Or marry their dog, horse, cat? What if a 10 year old (or younger) wants to marry? Are we going to deny that "class" of people? How can one "class" of people be allowed a "legal right", but another class of people is denied the same????
ReplyDeleteBonnie T.
I have to agree with you Steve. While I don't think it should give gays any SPECIAL rights, they should be entitled to the same ones all have with respect to relationships and benefits. I wish more people would adopt Live and Let Live, and start worrying about their own lives and focus on being Americans and caring about our country and troops etc, than getting so angry and focused on this issue.
ReplyDelete