Is marriage a right? Depends. Is gay marriage a right? Depends. What brings me to write about these questions. Anger at supposed guaranteed rights. Does our constitution protect the sanctity of marriage? I do not believe it does. Nowhere in the federal constitution is marriage mentioned, much less protected. Marriage was a province of religion until governments saw a chance of gaining revenue from regulating it. Therefore marriage began a religious institution, not a secular one. Does the federal constitution vaguely present support of gay marriage? Not really.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It appears to me that these two articles leave rights not specifically enumerated to States and to popular interpretation. Does this mean that states can constitutionally grant or deny certain rights? Certainly. Is this what California and many other states have done in recent years? Yes. Can it be done by referendum, or popular vote? Yes.
Is gay marriage an unalienable right, spoken of in the Declaration of Independence? I do not believe so. This brings up another point. It was stated that we live in a democracy, and that people had this right because of that. That point is flat out false. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. If we lived in a democracy, it would make the pro-gay marriage position even weaker than it is now. A simple majority would rule, and gay marriage would have been banned for over 2 years now in California, seeing as one law was already passed to prevent gay marriage.
So where does the issue currently stand. As of now, 3 cases are pending before the California Supreme Court, to decide whether this amendment was legally put before the California constituency. What will happen? Who knows? As has been represented recently in California’s Supreme Court rulings, gay marriage will survive. But at present this quote, I believe is law.
“Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted.[127] A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.[127]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Living in the country we do does provide the general public to occasionally speak as individuals when addressing law. This time, as with most others, the majority rules. Some will say that the majority is taking away rights that were not theirs to take. Remember, at one point marrying 13 year olds was appropriate, as was marrying multiple women. Owning other humans was considered to be okay. But in the end, the majority ruled in those cases also; sometimes by might, other times by longsuffering and persuasion. In the end, righteousness won.
Like it or not, gay marriage is not legal in California. In three months, who knows? But until the courts rule, the laws as it stands, is the law.
I use this format to avoid conflict. Well based arguments are appreciated; opinions based on emotion are simply opinion. When both sides stand on fact, and arguments from both sides are considered by both sides, compromise and understanding will prevail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey there, glad to see that you are blogging again. If it takes putting tacs on your chair in Sunday School to get you to blog, get ready for more abuse.
I have a couple of comments:
You write, "It was stated that we live in a democracy, and that people had this right because of that."
If this is in relation to something that I said to Becky then my point was lost when she said that 'we live in a democracy and this is a question of civil rights.' You practically make my point in your blog when you wrote:
"Remember, at one point marrying 13 year olds was appropriate, as was marrying multiple women. Owning other humans was considered to be okay. But in the end, the majority ruled in those cases also...."
My reason for saying that we live in a democracy was in response to your comment that the idea of gay marriage wasn't even discussed fifty years ago. Now, just to be clear, represtentative republic or democracy, my point was in response to the fact that what was not acceptable in society in the past can gain a voice in the present with our form of government. In the past, talking about interracial marriage was unheard of but society changed and legal acceptances were made and today it is not that uncommon. Society changes whether we like it or not. We can influence it to a point but sometimes our influence is limited. And in this case it is pretty easy to see how society is changing: in 2000 the California law banning gay marriage (that was later overturned) passes with 61% of the vote, Prop 8 passes with only 52%. If this comes up as a new proposed constitutional ammendment in California in another eight years or so I am absolutely certain that it will overturn Proposition 8. At least that is what the numbers suggest. And that was my point in my comment about democracy - not as a justification but as an explanation.
Post a Comment