A friend recently posted his opinions on California’s Proposition 8. I was going to post a comment on his site, but it got a little too lengthy, so I thought I’d explain here why I voted NO on Arizona’s proposition 102 in 2008; why in 2004, I also voted no on Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3; and, had I lived in California in 2008, would have voted no on Proposition 8.
I believe marriage is a religious issue, not a legal one. The legal issue at hand is not allowing any two parties, regardless of gender, to enter into the legal contract that our society currently defines as marriage. Just as the government should not be allowed to force religious organizations to accept same-sex relationships as moral, they should also not be allowed to force others NOT to accept same-sex marriages.
If I want to start a church that believes a marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman is acceptable, and set up religious leaders to perform marriage ceremonies — are these amendments not a violation to my first amendment right to religion? Many people involved in same-sex relationships may really feel that they have a spiritual connection to god; and I believe it isn’t right to tell them they are not allowed to have different religious beliefs than me.
Now let me concede one point (this is mostly for those people that adamantly support these amendments): I do agree (and I would say any logical person would also agree) that regardless of how our society ultimately defines the actual word “marriage,” it will not magically make same-sex relationships procreative ones. While I do understand that many people who voted in favor of these amendments would possibly still support “civil unions” between same-sex couples, I believe the same argument of equality still applies, and any legal contracts also need to go by the same name.
Maybe the government could stop recognizing any of these contracts as marriages; and then, whatever name they do come up with would need to be the same, regardless of the couples’ gender; and all benefits (taxes, medical, adoption, pensions, estates, etc.) need to be extended equally. I’m even fine with the government continuing to allow marriage ceremonies performed by religious groups to automatically bind couples into this legal contract, but then religious groups that perform same-sex marriages should again be extended that same right.
Or, I have a great idea — why not let the government call these contracts whatever the hell they want (i.e. marriage), while at the same time not forcing any religious group to accept same-sex marriages as morally right? I don’t understand why people can’t separate the two: drinking and smoking are legal, but at the same time the government still allows religious groups to limit their members’ admittance to certain ceremonies based on these criteria.
We don’t need a thousand or so new laws and amendments added to our books to “solve” this issue. And as long as the Constitution is still around, you will always have your religious right to believe same-sex marriages are immoral. If the Constitution ever does disappear, then your precious state amendments banning same-sex marriages probably won’t hold any weight, anyway.
Just let these people get married and get over it.
No rights reserved.
I must say, I like your point of view. This is an issue that touches the very fabric of many people’s identities. When discussing the issue, I become very empassioned about it. I’m currently reading a book called A Different Mirror. It is a history of America told by this affected by white’s belief in manifest destiny. The level of attrocity, bigotry and hatred that existed in many white settlers is simply sickening to me and though the conditions are not physically as bad, psychologically they are nearly identilcal. It’s not to say that this book has changed my perspective on the issue (I’ve felt this way about same-sex marriage for years), rather it has reminded me of the damage done to members of our society who, under the law, are created equally and are said to have the same rights. I know that here in Utah, I will continue to be surrounded by people who simply choose not to question what is handed down to them week after week in church and that I will remain a minority in my opinion. I’m okay with that. However, the Civil Rights Movement was proof that minority rights cannot be decided by the majority and I think that concept very much applies to the topic at hand.
My sister sent me a text the same day I wrote this, because she thought that I was trying to condone same-sex relationships, I don’t have her text anymore, but here’s my reply:
The government should never have been involved in marriage, it is entirely a religious institution. If people wanted to get married, it should only have been done at their church.
Also, it is a misconception that the US government was founded on Christianity: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson (very first quote). The Bill of Rights from the US Constitution simply guarantees freedom of religion, and the right to believe what you want so long as you don’t infringe the rights of others.
And since I believe marriage is a religious institution, if another religion wants to desecrate my beliefs, no matter how much I dislike it, since it is not directly infringing on my right to attend my religion that upholds the sanctity of marriage, I should not be allowed to directly infringe on their rights, either. If people want to publish anti-Christian or anti-Mormon material, that is their right to free speech; I don’t have to read it, and they don’t have the right to force me to read it, but they must retain their right to publish or speak it.
It is sad that this is even an issue, but since governments have decided to allow people to enter into contractual unions, it means they either need to take away the benefits from all or give them to any two parties that wish to enter the contract. I really could care less if they want to call it something else, but the point is that a secular contract should be called the same thing for everyone.