"I don’t understand why people are against gay marriage. Their main argument is that it’s tearing away at our social fabric. You really think gays would do anything to harm fabric?"
That was six years ago. Gay marriage has been one of the most controversial debates in current American history, and Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments that might finally catalyze a decision.Thousands gathered to support marriage equality, taking part in the largest demonstration the high court has seen in decades.
Over at the National Mall, those in opposition of gay marriage held their own separate demonstration. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone begged the question "What could be more beautiful or even more sacred than a man and a woman coming together to create new life?" In the court house, Attorney Charles Cooper raising his concern that "re-defining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic, traditional procreative purposes. And it will re-focus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults." And this is where I myself, and Justice Elena Kagan have to call 'bullshit.'
In Response to Cooper, Kagan offers this scenario: "Suppose a state said “because we think that the focus of marriage should be on procreation, we’re not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of fifty-five.” Would that be constitutional? Because that’s the same state interest, I would think. You know, if you’re over 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage." The logic behind Cooper's claim is flawed to say the absolute least. It's not as if America is facing some under-population problem; if anything, overpopulation is the problem. Are more kids what America really needs when so many are without homes? Maybe if marriage rights were allowed to gay couples, they could adopt some of the orphans that were given up after pregnant teen girls' bible-waving parents wouldn't let them get an abortion. But alas, I digress...
Other than the obvious inconsistencies discussed previously, the legal ground upon which opposers of gay marriage stand, is crumbling. If the Constitution is the document we base our laws from, and that document states that we are all created equal, then shouldn't that be reflected in our legislature? If this is so, then Proposition 8 must be found unconstitutional. Attorney, Theodore Olsen explained to the Supreme Court that "It is not consistent with the ideals, and the laws and the Constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class, and deny them rights that we give to everyone else."
This situation really boils down to is the fact that The Constitution is what makes the laws in this country, not the Bible. Let us review the 1st amendment; we have the freedom of religion, therefore a religion cannot dictate the legislature. And why would the Supreme Court base their decisions off a book that tells us that not only is being gay a sin, but eating shellfish, pork, and wearing certain fabrics will also render you damned? While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and also remind everyone that the bible not only defines marriage as between man and woman, but between man and many wives, man and wife and concubines, rapist and victim, and conquering soldier and female prisoner of war -let me point out that four out of five of those examples are illegal in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment