(Untitled)

[songbird04]

I'm having a hard time with all the controversy surrounding Prop 8 in California. On one hand, I fully support gay marriage and think that Prop 8 is a horribly unfair, biggoted piece of legislation. Equality is a right in our country, and I don't believe that it is fair for people to tell others how to live their lives and what they should be

Comments

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[anonymous]

Gay marriage is a particularly interesting topic in terms of Democracy. You can view it from your latter statement, which yields the government the right to control certain aspects of people's lives. To me, it's similar to gun control or religious choice. The government should not have a right to decide. I understand that the introduction of tax benefits for married people has allowed the government to make a decision about recognizing gay marriages, but I still believe it to be wrong (the banning, not the gay marriage).

Banning gay marriage is an moral statement that our governments are making. What makes this Democracy different from all others is not that the majority gets to decide, monarchy's and republics have been relying on that policy since the time of the Greeks. What makes the U.S. different is that the constitution was written to protect the rights of the minority. Are some religious people now going to control America's government and it's moral actions simply because they are the majority (cause let's be honest, very few others are fighting against it)? Since the Cold War the U.S. has been a 'moral' leader in the fight to spread Democracy to other nations. It was only in August that Bush was pressuring China to improve their human rights record. Our beliefs are that women, children, and ethnic minorities should be protected from oppressive governments. Why is it such a stretch to include gays. Ultimately it comes down to simple questions.

Does the public have a right to vote on every issue related to human rights?
Are there rights which should not come to vote, and that the court should roundly protect for everyone?
Does gay marriage fit in the inalienable rights clause?

Gay marriage has NO victims. With more than 50% of straight marriages failing, you can't argue that it is going to 'destroy' the meaning of marriage; that is already going the way of the buffalo.

Others say that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman. Controlling someone's life over the definition of a word is retarded to me. Arguing semantics just hides the truth, you want to control the life of someone else over a system of beliefs which resides in the majority in this country. Contrary to the voice of the pulpit, this country is not undermining Christianity, it is quite the opposite.