This legal interpretative hypocrisy has been further perpetuated by the attempted contextual argument of reactionaries and religious fundamentalists. They have asserted that because many laws were formed from religious restrictions on conduct, religions remain the over reigning, predominate reference and ascendant authority on issues for which a case can be made that there exists a legal ambiguity.
These parties fail to remember that we live in a free society, providing equal protections for all citizens under the law: a society whose only justifiable segregation occurs between the powers of government, and between church/worship and the managing of the state. Religious objections to same sex marriage are a matter for faiths and their adherents as a private matter of faith and belief. Lawmakers are not a party to those conversations. So why are the standards of specific religious leaders being applied to our entire secular society, especially, when that application flies in the face of true legal equality for certain citizens in our country?
It is should be empirically evident that the protections afforded individual lifestyle choices, as defined by a free society, (as spiritually enshrined by our founding documents) should be extended to all citizens, whether their lifestyle choices mirror our founders or not.
Laws are laws for a reason, and history has repeatedly shown, that the separate but equal doctrine of addressing discrimination but not rectifying it, has never provided an effective solution to these issues. Marriage is not a holy sacrament in our civil society, but rather, it is a part of the process used to help insure stability for society via: land rights/property rights enforcement and protections, health and other benefits access opportunities, tax privileges, etc etc.
Marriage is largely defined as a commitment between two people for the purposes of creating a loving stable home environment, for the raising of children, for safe neighborhoods, for economic stability and for collective security. The original purpose of marriage was to protect procreation, and still apply safeguards and regimentation for societies.
But the institution of marriage as defined by the state isn't about protecting procreative habits and insuring the species anymore... that went the way of the do-do bird when government began incouraging marriage through the tax subsidies of progressive rate modifications in favor of families and married couples. It also became obsolete as a social unifier because of the proliferation of divorce, and advances in technology that allow for procreation without a dedicated partner.
And lastly (for now) on this topic: Who are we to judge or restrict the consenting love of two adults? Who is the government to place a value judgement on the love of two people for one another? Since when do we have the right to advocate the legislation and restriction of loving partners and exclude people the benefits that we have already deemed necessary to further their commitments as a couple, on the basis of gender and sexual preference? Equality is equality: the suffrage movement taught us this and the civil rights movement taught us this as well.
It's too bad that we seem to need another painful lesson on the topic of discrimination. Especially troubling for our country is that those principals who should understand the value of equal protections and non discrimination are the religious authorities and other people who cry out about the value of their freedoms and the protections of their rights, but are vociferous in denying the rights of other people.
Because, these elements have the ability to express their own individuality and preferences, but sadly are willing to denounce and blockade their fellow citizens who just want the same rights, we have to act now to stop discrimination and their narrow mindedness through legislation and substantive determined advocacy. Legalize and enshrine marriage for all couples.
No comments:
Post a Comment