Busy-Bodies and the Marriage Amendment

I have to admit that this marriage amendment issue is starting to get to me. One columnist calls it "the defining issue of our time." What?!! It is nothing of the sort. It is the defining issue of a bunch of busy-bodies who insist on pushing their religiously-based morality on society. I have always found it interesting that many conservatives blame judicial activism when the laws they pass get overturned by the courts. This was the case with the sodomy laws and now it seems to be their major beef with gay marriage.

So, for those who hold the US Constitution in high esteem as the uber-document of our society, let's review. The Declaration of Independence was written not only to proclaim our break from Britain, it was written to establish the rights of man and the legitimate purposes and scope of government. At the heart of it is the idea that the government exists to protect the rights of the people. Those rights are rights that humans have by virtue of being born. This is in direct opposition to the idea that people exist for the benefit of government, which happens to be the idea that underpins just about every non-democratic form of government. The Constitution was written to define the organization of the government that was described in the Declaration of Independence. It set up the three branches of government, the checks and balances between them, the mechanisms for electing officials, the enumeration of powers, the relationship between the states and the federal government, and it established the mechanism for amending the document over time. Conservatives cling to the Constitution, but apparently only when it is convenient.

In my view, the state has no role in the issue of marriage. It makes sense to establish a legal framework for civil unions, but how does the established scope of government allow for the state to require licensure for marriage? What we're seeing now is just a consequence of a bad decision that was made years ago. Had the state stayed out of the discussion as it should have, this would not be an issue. After all, civil unions for gay people are not a problem. But marriage, well that's another story. The Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in the Clinton years was established to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. This is a clear violation of the notion of equal protection under the law, which is why courts have seen fit to overturn it. This is how the Constitution tells us that things are supposed to work. But instead of accepting that the system sometimes yields results that they don't like, conservatives claim that the system is being manipulated by activist judges.

Our legislators make laws to protect our rights, and sometimes it is necessary to abridge the rights of the few to protect the rights of the many. But in the case of gay marriage, there is no one to protect. Gay people getting married has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone not involved in the situation. I challenge anyone to tell me which of their rights are being violated by gay couples. The fact is that the laws against gay marriage have all been passed because the gay lifestyle is offensive to people in a position to influence legislation. Apparently, conservatives are of the opinion that they have the right not to be offended. After a thorough reading of the Constitution, I can find no such right. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the courts would strike down these ridiculous laws. So, Bush and pals would do well to get over it and move on to issues that actually matter. Why would they not?

Here we see the team mentality at work. This is classic in-group prejudice. Homosexuals constitute a minority in our society, and as we all know by now, the caveman mind naturally assigns value to that which is in the majority. Now when we place this against the backdrop of presidential politics, we come to an interesting conclusion. The pursuit of a marriage amendment is nothing more than a political move aimed at pandering (there's that word again) to a caveman majority. Ladies and gentlemen, our political landscape is truly depressing.

Our leaders should be, dare I say, leading. Alas, they are more concerned with their own desire for power than they are for the public good. The bottom line is that homosexuality is irrelevant. There are far more pressing issues that face our society. To waste our tax dollars on debating the irrelevant is irresponsible. To attempt to modify the document that defines our society just to please some backwards homophobes is inexcusable.