Gay marriage, Abortion, Taxes, Social Values, et cetera.
I have been engaged in debate on the comments of a few entries. This response is going to be quite lengthy, so I decided to just address it all in one entry.
Gay Marriage:
The debate about the right of gay marriage was a big issue in these comments. This is really an issue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am not talking about my personal views in these clauses, but what the clauses actually state.
According to the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
And the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Fourteenth Amendment was all that was needed to state that anti-miscegenation laws violated Constitutional rights. It does not matter if a majority votes against them. In fact, a majority of voters in the United States opposed the right of interracial marriage. Prior to that, it was actually illegal to allow Black Americans to marry. At the time, it was claimed that it “tarnished the sanctity of marriage.” It really didn’t matter what the claim was, or how much support there was, because EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IS GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“ To deny anyone the rights granted to other Americans violates this clause.
Many argue that marriage is a religious institution and not a civil institution. Well, some churches perform “gay marriages.“ So, by making that illegal, isn’t that endorsing Churches that do not allow gay marriage? The Constitution resolves that issue in a simple sentence as well: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.“
By endorsing Churches that do not perform gay marriages, or by making it illegal for other Churches to do so VIOLATES the First Amendment of the Constitution.
And, let’s be honest, what is it hurting you that gay people are married? The biggest social problem in context of gay marriage is “Who is the husband?” or “Who is the wife?” I don’t see where there are any other negative impacts on gay marriage. It is not like straight people are all going to run out and get a gay marriage once it is legal. Is that what we are afraid of? Or do we just want to avoid giving the same rights and privileges to gays that we give to straights?
Whatever your opposition is to gay marriage, I fail to see any rationality in it. It is a purely religious argument and a personal decision. For the life of me, I cannot see why so many people care so damn much? I mean, really? Why do you care? Don’t give me the “Sanctity of marriage” argument. I’ve known plenty of married people, and I would venture to guess that 90% of them weren’t all that sanctified.
Abortion:
This is probably a trickier issue than gay marriage. The problem is that there is science behind the development of a fetus and there are a lot of gray areas. I stated several times that I do not believe this is a black and white issue. Many people try to make it into one (especially those on the far right.)
Although I am pro-Choice, I am not pro-abortion. This does not come from a religious vantage, but from a scientific one. I would agree that when a woman is 8.5 months pregnant, the developing fetus within her womb is pretty much a viable baby. If it were to be removed from her womb, the probability of survival is very high. On the same hand, a zygote is nothing more than a cluster of cells that have a genetic blue-print to create a human being. Ovum have genetic blueprints to create human beings. I do not feel that destroying a zygote is equatable to destroying a baby.
That said, what it comes down to is legality. The problem I have is that we are not legal citizens until we are born. The “rights of the child” really don’t come into play until birth. The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me, and I’m fine with that. In reality, I’m not a woman, I will never have to make this decision, so I can’t pretend to know what I would do when confronted with the decision. This is why I am pro-Choice. The decision to abort a pregnancy is a decision for a woman and her medical staff.
Note: I do find it odd that many people who support capital punishment typically condemn abortion, and vice versa. Who is “Pro-Life”? Its ok for the State to take someone’s life? Even though there is no evidence that executions decrease crime rates? (In fact, executions typically cause an increase in crime rates, but we are still unsure why.)
Just an interesting aside.
Taxes:
