Saturday, October 6, 2012

"Self-Evident" Means "Obvious": Protecting the Pursuit of Happiness


There’s so much buzz in the air these days about gay rights.  It’s one of the primary concerns of the presidential candidates—some people consider it the only reason for their choice between Romney and Obama.  And whoever you ask seems to have a very strong opinion about it.  But I can’t help but wonder if our government has a right to control this.

I see articles and images all the time talking about “the sanctity of marriage.”  It seems strange to me in today’s culture, where so little is considered to be sacred.  Religion is not a powerful force in society, at least not openly—it’s one of those things most people don’t normally discuss outside of their own circle of friends.  And where the government is concerned, it’s something that shouldn’t be discussed.  I quote word for word from Amendment I—as in, the first and arguably most important amendment—to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  (View a transcript of the Bill of Rights here.)  Therefore, if we consider marriage to fall under the domain of religion—as the word “sanctity” implies—it is unconstitutional for the government to pass any laws about it.

On the other hand, marriage is also a civil concern, as the joining of two people to form a family unit (from Merriam-Webster: “a contractual and consensual relationship recognized by law”).  Marriage gives the married couple certain rights, including next-of-kin, release of medical information, shared assets, etc.  Okay.  Surely this is fair game for the government to regulate?  I’m not so sure.  Certainly the first amendment has nothing to say about this side of marriage, but something about the suggested marriage laws still sits wrong with me.  Removing the religious concerns, what reason do we have to prohibit gays from getting married?  If a marriage as a civil union is “a contractual and consensual relationship”, why should the law not recognize it between two people of the same sex?  Remember, we've already knocked out the religious element, so you can't say anything about what the Bible says.  The only arguments that remain (that I can think of) are these: first, that marriage in the past has always been between a man and a woman; and second, that marriage is meant for the creation of children.  Well, the latter doesn't hold much water when you think of how many children are in foster care: more than 400,000 last month according to www.childwelfare.gov.  If same-sex couples can offer children like that a stable home, why should they not be able to?  As for the concern of "traditional" marriage, while it's hard sometimes to argue against tradition, tradition alone is not a very logical or convincing argument.  

Having gone through the reasons in support of marriage regulation, now I'd like to take a look at the reasons against it, or at least the one most pressing reason, which is this: if we do prohibit gays from getting married, are we taking rights from them that they otherwise deserve to have?  Let’s head back to the words of the founding fathers, who in fact were very smart men in my opinion.  Maybe there’s nothing in the constitution that speaks one way or the other about same-sex marriage, but what about the Declaration of Independence?  Again I quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  (View a transcript of the Declaration of Independence here.)

If choosing to tie your life to that of someone you love is not the pursuit of happiness, what on earth is?

So here we have, in the very first words of the first document that made this nation what it is, a promise to its people that their most basic rights will not be taken away—that it is the duty of the government to protect those rights.  Similarly, in the first amendment of the document on which we base all of our laws and government regulations, there is a promise that we will not be ruled by a religion not our own through the government.  So how in the world can anyone claim that federal regulations on marriage are right and just?

If there’s even one thing that is sacred to our government, it should be the freedom of the people.  The minute we start taking freedom from our people, we cease to be the nation that our founders hoped we would be.

No comments:

Post a Comment