The GOP, Marriage, and Constitutional Rights

According to their published 2012 platform the GOP believes in “restoring a constitutional government” so do I, however, they try to tie a constitutional act defining marriage into this “belief in a constitutional government”. WHAT! Listen up GOP I have read the constitution many times over and while it does provide for the creation of amendments (Article V), The Bill of Rights (you know those first 10 amendments without which the constitution would have never been ratified… thank you Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia), provide for my religious freedom (amendment I). If an amendment defining marriage isn’t an amendment infringing on my religious freedom I don’t know what is. Please give me one good reason why there should be an amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual act aside from the fact that you don’t agree with homosexuality on a personal/religious level… haven’t got one? Then back off! They also go on to say that they consider our states to be “the laboratories of democracy from which the people propel our nation forward, solving local and state problems through local and state innovations.” Well if that’s the case then why bother, let the states handle it as they see fit.  The only truly republican argument here should be that this is a state issue (According to the 10^th amendment “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.”). Of course this argument is a tough one to defend.

I myself previously held that the issue of homosexual marriage was a state issue. I believed that the people of each state should be allowed to decide how they felt about this for themselves and vote accordingly.  After much research, discussion and thought on this issue however, I have changed my previous position. It appears to me that this issue is unarguably one of “equal rights” so the question is “Do current state laws concerning marriage deny a portion of the population its 14^th amendment rights?” I believe that the answer is yes. Why am I allowed the benefits and protections of marriage (or adversely the limits and dangers) while another portion of the population is denied this? Since I have yet to hear any arguments against homosexual marriage that are not based solidly in personal religious/moral beliefs and since we each have the right to believe as we choose, it seems clear to me that there is no reason for this infringement.

I know that at this very moment somebody is trying to make the erroneous argument that allowing homosexual marriage would mean also having to allow people to marry animals etc. “Where does it stop!” they are a wailing. Please spare me the dramatics. It stops among consenting adults. Animals can’t say, “I do” therefore they don’t. This is also the reason 8 year olds can’t get married or complain about job discrimination (your ridiculous example deserves an equally ridiculous example). I admit that the allowance of homosexual marriage opens us up to all kinds of changes and new (real) problems to solve (i.e. how might this effect the current social security system) but I have faith that we can work through it all.

Please feel free to leave your comments, questions and concerns below.

“Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi