North Carolina had an Amendment vote to their constitution. It was called Amendment One. This Amendment would define and hold hostage the phrase “between one man and one woman”. Really people? This is what you need in your constitution!?! How about a constitutional amendment to a balanced budget? How about a constitutional amendment not allowing “traditional” marriages to be dissolved? No it’s requires a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise a minority group in your state. Really?
I wish the religious right actually had important agendas other than denying citizens with differing points of view their civil and legal rights. How about an agenda for feeding the children of this country? How about saving the elderly from the harshness of being disposed of by our culture? Healthcare for children in poverty? Nope it is the evil gay agenda degrading our society with their abnormal lives that is the primary focus. First there is nothing abnormal about my life. I love, I work, I pay taxes, I contribute to charities and love and am loved by my Lord. I have no agenda. What I do have is a want to marry legally to ensure the protection of the laws of our country for myself, my children and my wife. That is a life people not an agenda.
I saw this response to an op-ed piece and this woman named Sarah answered some of those commentators who would strip anyone they do not consider like them of their rights. Here is what she said:
You’re correct, marriage as a right is never mentioned in the Constitution. Good thing
we have a 9th Amendment!!!
For all you fans of “strawman” arguments…
The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn’t enough public interest
to support the complications surrounding across the board legal polygamy. We
would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law,
probate law, yada, yada, yada.
The pedophilia/inanimate object/bestiality argument: Fails. Children, animals,
and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can’t
consent, they can’t contract, they don’t get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing,
homosexuality is not a mental illness, it’s not listed in the DSM-IV and has no
negative impact on society.
The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two
immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that
they’re related, and still want to marry, and I’ll say go for it.
The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property
agreement predating all organized religion. You’re thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is
the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the
two legal adults. That’s why society doesn’t get a share in everyone’s divorce, we
don’t sign the license, we don’t get the kids every other weekend.
The majority rules argument: Fails. We’re a Republic, we don’t vote on civil rights,
and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means
you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the
following are legal reasons… The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion,
your morals, unproven paranoia.
The state shouldn’t place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn’t equal
something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports atheism.
Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example… If you’re pushing against a wall,
and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion
constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every
single, non religious, thing in the country.
The I don’t want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as
many people out there that don’t want your relationship in their face either, does that
mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don’t like something,
don’t pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you
want them to be, isn’t an infringement on your freedoms. Call me when someone
forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over
The it’s unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don’t argue against. Like
babies with health issues surviving. That’s not supposed to happen according to
“survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” either. Nor is marriage about
procreation. Look at all the couples who don’t want/have kids, and all the single
people who do.
And no, the 10th Amendment and the founding father’s “religion” has nothing to do
with this. Religion, being part of our Founding Father’s personal lives, and being part
of how our Founding Father’s wanted our nation to be ran, are two very different
“Strongly guarded is the separation of religion and government in the
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are
“I have found Christian dogma to be unintelligible.”
“I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the American people which
declared that their legislature ‘make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of
separation between church and state.”
And, my personal favorite, from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, and
ratified by congress…
“The United States was, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Finally, not that you brought it up, Curt, but I’m sure someone will…
And don’t even give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee, crap. The 14th
amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Ergo, the 1st amendment to the
states. Argument that the 10th gives the states the right to name a religion would of
been valid in, oh 1860 or earlier. In fact, the 14th basically makes the 10th almost null
and void. An issue regarding the 10th hasn’t even come before SCOTUS since the
’60’s when they tried to use it to stop desegregation.
So please, explain to me how two people entering into a contractual property
agreement, infringes on someone’s freedom of religion?
No one is trying to force their beliefs or lifestyles on you. In fact, the complete
opposite is true.
WE don’t use gay relationships as an issue in politics, the right does. We advocate
for NOT using them, NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in
treating them the same as straight people. In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that
SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they’re Bibles,
morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no
It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws… It is the
right that’s fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a
political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how
they go about using them or defending them.
Phew, so put that in your pipes and smoke it. Now, can we please move on, under
the banner of equal protection???
#1.15 – Tue May 8, 2012 1:10 PM EDT
I like how Sarah summed it up. I hope that in my life time I will see legalized marriage for everyone.