I don't know why, but I really don't feel like blogging. But, my horoscope has forced me to write this: [i]"Most people prefer to avoid politics, but Capricorn wades right in where angels fear to tread. Your opinions are wise and your solutions are unconventional. Anyone would be lucky to have your support."[/i] So, as you can see, I clearly had to write this. It's in the stars...
As you well know unless you have paid absolutely no attention to anything today or yesterday, Massuchesetts' highest court declared that gay couples have the right, under the state's constitution, to marry. I wasn't shocked by this decision and thought it was perfectly acceptible. Apparently, the majority of US citizens does not feel the same. I [i]was[/i] shocked when I heard on Nightline, or some show that was discussing it last night, that 55% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Wow. I would expect some opposition, but not that much. I will leave the debate of homosexuality alone and just focus on the constitutional validity of this decision.
To be against something is one thing, but to support enforced legislation against something is another. For example, I am generally against partial-birth abortions, but I do not support the recent ban Bush signed into legislation against partial-birth abortions. I am against marriage, but I support the right to marry, same-sex or not. This is not hypocritical; it is only logical. In the United States we have individual rights, individual freedoms. Unfortunately, they seem to be disappearing. Individuals have the right to decide their own sexual orientation and, therefore, should be given the right to marry whomever they choose. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.
What scares me is that George W. Bush seems to think it is okay to impose his personal moral beliefs on the entire nation. It's not right, I would never dream of forcing anyone to abide by my moral standards, and the president shouldn't either. Bush stated in criticism of the Massachusetts ruling: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman" and declared that the ruling "violates this important principle." But that's his principle, not mine. He also vowed to work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage." He shouldn't be allowed to decide what is moral and the government should not interfere with individual rights.
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., called the Massachusetts decision "just one more assault on the Judeo-Christian values of our nation." (from Yahoo news)
Again, the nation was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, the nation was founded on the principle of religiouis freedom. If you [i]choose[/i] to worship God, that's great. In fact, if you choose to worship turnips, that's great too. Just don't try and assert that the entire nation must worship turnips as well. Christians oppose same-sex unions, and that's fine, it's their choice. But, again, the government does not have the right to make that decision for the citizens, and especially not on the basis of Judeo-Christian values- there is separation of church and state to ensure that this doesn't happen. I for one don't want to live in a country where my morals are dictated to me by my government. Let's just hope common sense and the constitution win in the end. Betting on it wouldn't be wise though, I'm afraid.
I am glad that at least the courts are finding some way to keep alive the individual rights standard that has long since been abandoned in many other areas of liberty.
I think that same sex marrigas are awsome because those people finally have the option and privalidge to life the way they were ment just like we live the way we are ment to. it just had be psuhed is all.
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
