Jed ([info]jherzog) wrote,
@ 2004-06-09 10:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
The spirit of America, forgotten?
I want to address two topics in this post. I will start by presenting my opinion on a current and very controversial topic. I feel strongly in my beliefs on this topic but know that many people will disagree. I hope you read it with an open mind and examine the issue not the emotions. As I said, my opinion is strong on this topic but it is not the important issue in this post. Rather my second proposition is the one that I want people to walk away thinking about.

My first topic is my opinion on homosexual marriage; my second topic is why my opinion is arbitrary and you just wasted your time reading it.

Homosexual Marriage,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only argument that I have ever heard against homosexual marriage concerns the “sanctity of marriage”. A lot of people consider marriage a very sacred bond that they define as a union between a man and a woman. There are two ways to get married; in the eyes of your church and in the eyes of the law. When talking about the sanctity of marriage, by definition, you can only be referring to marriage in the eyes of the church. The new laws that seek to allow homosexual marriage only apply to marriage in the eyes of the law. No one is suggesting that we should force churches to marry homosexuals. Considering the religious views of most denominations, churches probably should not marry homosexuals. They have the right not to. These laws are simply stating that legally, homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage and all of the advantages of marriage.

Food for thought:
If we should not allow homosexual couples to marry because it devalues the sanctity of marriage why do we allow a heterosexual couple that are Satanists to get married in a court of law? These satanic heterosexual couples have been able to marry for decades. Now don’t misinterpret. I am not making any implication or connection between homosexuals and satanists. I don’t think there are similarities. Rather I am taking an extreme case to push a point. It seems in the eyes of religion, (and I think most of the Religious Right will agree to this) blatant and deliberate worshipping of Lucifer is far worse than homosexuality, yet they have the right to marry without any argument from the religious right. The point is they have been marrying for years without devaluing the sanctity of marriage because they do so in the eyes of the law not in the eyes of your church. Period.

The Meat (and this following point addresses a lot more than just homosexual marriage):
As I stated before you just wasted your time. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what my opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what your opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what the Pope thinks, it doesn’t matter what George W. Bush thinks, it doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans think. Only one thing matters and many many people have forgotten this. In fact I very seldom hear anyone mention it but … the assessment that matters is that of the Constitution of The United States of America (which embodies the spirit of the United States).

When our Forefathers settled this country they wrote a Constitution to govern it. They were brilliant writers and wrote a brilliant Constitution. I want to address two aspects of the Constitution that I feel make it so brilliant; it’s openness and foresight.

These Forefathers knew what it was to be discriminated against. They had experienced not having the right to practice their religious beliefs or be represented in the government. That is why the United States was founded. Accordingly, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they did so with great care to make sure that everyone that lives in this country will live free and never be discriminated against.

Many people, especially the Conservative Right and the people who would disagree with the beginning of this post, love to point out that our Founding Fathers were very religious, very Christian and not ashamed to show it. These Forefathers spoke of God a lot, they prayed a lot. I agree and that is what makes my point so strong. They were very religious and Christian. Yet they only mention religion twice in the Constitution, both times banning its role in government (legal) issues (religion was mentioned once in Article IV when it states “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” and again in the first Amendment when it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”.) Our Forefathers did this very deliberately. They acted out of an understanding of what it's like to be discriminated against, they knew it was wrong, it should never happen again, to any one, for any reason. They also did this because they had foresight. They knew that without provisions in the Constitution that Americans (human nature) would soon forget and would start pushing their views (some of religious merit) on others, they would slowly start using religious arguments in government, and would start discriminating against others that were not in the majority.

For instance, here only 200 hundred years later. People think that in order to pledge allegiance to this great country in which we live everyone should have to declare their belief in God. People believe that our legal system is one and the same/based on the Christian Ten Commandments. People think that marriage is an exclusive right granted and governed by their religious beliefs.

Wait… Don’t yell at me yet… Bravo, Bravo, to all of the people above. For this Constitution that I have spoken of grants you the rights to believe and proclaim these opinions.

I may agree with you, I may not; this is not the issue here. What is this issue is the people that think our legally recognized pledge of allegiance (which we require all immigrants applying for citizenship to repeat) should contain a line that declares a belief in a God. What is at issue is the people who think we should blatantly display Christian documents at the entrances to our courts which symbolically proclaim that in this country, with freedom of religion, you will be judge by Christian standards. What is at issue is people who think that laws should be passed so that we can legally discriminate against people who are homosexual, not allow them to marry even in the eyes of the law, because they are different from the majority and some religions do not agree with them.

Pay attention :) This next part is the point.
When considering an issue do you ever stop and ask yourself “what is my belief, what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?” Do you ask these questions separately? You should. To me that is the true test of being an American: the ability to see a bigger picture than yourself and your opinion. To be able to say to yourself “a lot of people live in this country, a lot of people are different from me and we all deserve the same freedoms, regardless of my opinion”. That is what makes this country great; it is what makes it different and better than the rest. Most importantly it is the reason you can have your opinion.

I meant for the this post to have this impact on you; remember the freedoms of this country and what they mean, remember the Constitution and what it says. The democratic values that we enjoy in this country are not there as a means to enfource our opinion but rather elicit decisions that benefit the whole. I started this entry talking about homosexual marriage, so let me return to that subject briefly and as an aside. In the United States’ past we have discriminated against many people. We have discriminated based on Race, Sex, Age and probably many other attributes. Each and every time we have tested those practices with the Constitution and found them illegal. At those times there were people that believed we should continue with our discriminatory practices. To us those people seem to be from a different era and much unlike ourselves. We are not racist or chauvinist and we are not prejudiced to the elderly or the young. Yet here again we have a group of people being deprived of the same legal rights endowed to everyone else. This time we are discriminating against people of different sexual orientation. Trust me the Constitution and America has been asked to discriminate many times before, it will recapitulate its answer again. This country, based on freedom and equal rights, will refuse to discriminate on any basis. We extend our freedoms to all, even homosexual couples. That is what makes us the United States of America. Will you stand for equal rights and freedom or will you be one of those people that the future will fail to comprehend, just like those who fought to keep African-Americans or Women subclass Americans?

In Conclusion:
Yes we all have the right to vote and have our opinions heard. They are heard and are acted upon. However, these elected official’s major decisions, the ones that affect the character of this country, are governed by the Constitution and I for one am glad. The Constitution is a doctrine that, rather than based on emotional views, is a guideline that will align decisions to benefit the welfare of the whole and protect the freedoms of each and every one of us. I hope we all stop, reflect, comprehend and embrace these ideals. Too many people feel strongly about a topic (the answer to “what is my belief?”) but never consider or care about “what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?”

That’s why I am fed up, why aren’t you?



(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Semantics
(Anonymous)
2004-06-09 12:27 pm UTC (link)
I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to form a legal partnership in the same way as heterosexuals and I blame the media for sensationalizing the issue. If the term "unions", "life partnerships" or "gaywhiches" or any other label had been put on this situation besides "marriage" we wouldn't have all this uproar.

The primary underlying reason as I see it for necessity of gay unions is health care insurance. Gay partners need the same coverage under their partners insurance as a spouse in a hetero marriage. If giving them a way to have a legal union and the rights of a spouse can be insured without calling it a marriage I think that is the best solution.

Here's the thing that I think bothers a lot of people, myself included.

As you said earlier, Jed, marriage is essentially a religious thing. So why wouldn't religious groups feel like something of theirs had been taken from them and given to the "enemy" when they hear the term Gay Marriage <---(Liberal media term used intentionally to cause more sensationalism?) ?

Constitutional issues aside there are SOCIAL issues that need to be discussed. There needs to be a public forum on the issue regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. The moral majority in this country would like to at least have a say before they get this shoved down their throat by the mayor of San Francisco or the Massachusetts supreme court. Perhaps a simple label other than marriage is a solution that satifies everyone. I agree that the constitution will prevail here, and rightfully so, but don't get on a high horse and think that we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL VACCUUM just because doing so would support your argument in this case. Just because a judge, lawyer or politician interprets the constitution one way doesn't mean that's the way most people think. Just because this particular argument will likely fall your way in the courts and move the ideology of this country closer to your little left wing comfort zone doesn't mean it's in compliance with the wishes of the majority in this country. This is a case where the constitution may run contrary to majority rule democracy. Can you not understand that this would bother people? Must you bash President Bush for trying to give the peoplean avenue to express their opinions with votes on a constitutional amendment? Are you afraid it might actually pass and become law?

Gays are a small minority in this country. They deserve to be able to live their lives in the lifestyle they chose without being persecuted. However America is a country that has historically been driven from the center. The moral, religious, middle class. I think most Americans still go to church. I think most Americans, even though tolerant or accepting of gays, believe on some levels it is morally wrong. So *****Here's my real point of this paragraph**** This moral, fairly like minded majority of people are tired of seeing overly vocal, fringe element minorities getting more than their share of "say" on contraversial issues. It all harkens back to the same problems that have sickened and weakened (my opinion) this country since Vietnam. Liberal media bias that skews the court of public opinion and Political Correctness that makes a very narrow band of thoughts and beliefs to be somehow "correct."

There is a christian MAJORITY. And this is a DEMOCRATIC republic. And what the christian MAJORITY woke up to one morning was one or two judges in one or two places dictating that another small but vocal minority has the right to chip away at a cornerstone of what MOST people in this country believe without the majority being able to even have their say. There is more to America and our political system than the constitution. We have an ammendment system in place to test these issues. Let's use it and see what happens.

I am fed up and it's because of you :o)

Derrick Jordan

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Semantics
[info]agualadie
2004-06-09 08:55 pm UTC (link)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt

We're not a democratic republic, in fact we're a Constitution-based federal republic with a "strong democratic tradition." Don't get me wrong, I believe that people deserve their say in the actions of our government, but I also know that people are often misled by (oh wait) politicians (*cough*democrats*cough*) into believing that we live in a democracy. It is my opinion that they do this so we'll vote for them in the hope that they will make a difference in the government because "they will listen to the voice of the people." But let's not open that can of worms. Let's put it this way, people get overly consumed by emotion when they think about controversial issues like gay marriage. Emotion often leads to decision-making devoid of logic. Face it, discrimination is wrong, the Constitution says discrimination is wrong, so of course it's easy to say that the Constitution will help the argument to fall the way of what is fundamentally right. I am Christian, I would never expect my church to say "okay" to gay marriage, but I know that true Christians don't believe in hate, oppression, or passing judgment on their fellow man. Personally I don't mind a bit if Johnny Gay Guy wants to marry his life partner in the eyes of the law, because I know that while he's on Earth no man has the right to stop him from attaining his dream (Isn't that what America is about? Pursuing our dreams?). He's not harming me, or you, or anyone. And if I want to play crispy Christian and pass into the realm of being holier than thou, I'd say that he'll face the consequences after death do they part. But, I'm not like that, and besides, none of that "religious" bullshit matters. The people we elect to make decisions for us have studied more law, read the Constitution more times, and though some are driven by the quest for power and notoriety, a lot of them just want to do what is right for this country. We can write letters and send emails, but the delicate balance lies in matching up the wants of the mob to the principals that are the foundation of this country we enjoy (and take for granted). The founders knew that such a conflict would permeate this country's existence, and that's why they made this a Constitution-based federal republic, and not a mob-rule democracy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Semantics
(Anonymous)
2004-06-10 08:20 am UTC (link)
Well said Nyco, I especially like the link to the CIA site, nice touch. It's amazing how the reality of things can be such stark contrast to the crap we're taught in school isn't it?

(And just for the record I had written a few other diatribes originally but there is a limit on how long a reply can be so I didn't get to say everything I wanted to say)


I have a question though, one I pose in a "what's your opinion on this" way not an argumentivie way. What exactly is marriage? This is why I titled my reply semantics. As I said to begin with, I think that every couple, gay or straight, should have a legal union that affords them equal protection under the law. Getting married is a two tier process, you state recognition which we unfortunately call a "marriage lisence." Then you get religious recognition in a wedding ceremony. "Getting married"

We should change the semantics so that all people get a state recognized "certificate of union" and then if you want to get married you can. I am sure it wouldn't take any time at all for a gay church to form that would perform such ceremonies, or there may be religions out there now that are completely accepting of gays that would do it already.

On the constitution... I believe the constitution should and does afford everyone equal protection. However there have been 27 ammendments to it. Ammendments that were put there to address crucial issues of the times in which they were added. Was it "mob rule democracy" that freed the slaves? Ammending the constitution is a huge process (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process) but if it can be done then our "democratic principles" can actually override our "constitution-based federal republicanism." Granted it isn't pure democracy where individuals get to vote on the issue directly but if you can get a two thirds majority from house, senate all the states etc etc you have to believe that that is a mandate from the people, not politicians voting for their own beliefs (Not that I think there's a chance in hell of Bush's ammendment passing but it is within the rights of the religous people in this country to try.)

I too am a Christian but I am not especially religious. I do have a much PATHOS for religious people though (The only reason I really choose to vocalize on this issue). While many non religious people see churchgoers as judgemental, condescending tongue clickers (and this is often true). I also see them as a historicially signifigant moral anchor that keeps this country from swaying far off to the left. And as I said numerous times above, I think they represent the majority of people in the country. And, even though I support gay legal unions and full protection for gays who wish to spend their lives together, I like to hear from the religious side. The side who doesn't get to have the same say in media as others. They are fighting for something they believe in which is also something America is about. What bothers me is that my sense of normalcy and comman sense gets it's ass kicked almost everyday by something that I feel is way out of bounds. People spilling coffee on themselves and then getting milllions because it was hot. The ACLU suing to protect the "rights" of people who do incredibly stupid things to the detriment of others. "Civil rights leaders" who are able to make completely false allegations against other people or entities with no accountability what so ever. I guess my voice on the subject of gay marriage isn't against gay marriage but hooray just to hear from the other side for a change. Does that make sense to anyone but me?

Derrick

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Semantics
[info]jherzog
2004-06-10 11:18 am UTC (link)
"Getting married is a two tier process, you state recognition which we unfortunately call a "marriage lisence." Then you get religious recognition in a wedding ceremony. "Getting married""?" That is an opinion. I know plenty of people that were never married by a church. They consider themselves happily married and are considered legally married.

"Does that make sense to anyone but me?" ?" Sure whatever. We talking about our opinions. I love to talk, discuss, and debate. Now if you were to suggest we should make laws banning the ACLU, lock up the Civil Rights leaders and ban the "liberal media" from broadcast I will call you unAmerican again. That is what I have been talking about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Semantics
[info]jherzog
2004-06-10 08:37 am UTC (link)
First of all calling it union instead of marriage is not the same, it is different. Separate but equal was not the same, it was different.

"As you said earlier, Jed, marriage is essentially a religious thing." When did I say this. I said there are two ways to get married, in church and in the eyes of the law" I consider them equally important.

""This is a case where the constitution may run contrary to majority rule democracy. Can you not understand that this would bother people?" You missed the entire point of my post. My post was not about homosexual marriage it was about people that believe a certain way (which is fine and encouraged) but then have the closed-minded audacity to force, through law, everyone else to behave according to their belief. Very un-American!, for shame!. It does not matter what the majority thinks. We as Americans believe in freedom for all. We go to great lengths to protect the minorities. Like the agualadie said this is not a democracy.

Concerning your ideas of the amendment system, it takes a lot more than a majority to pass an amendment.

The only point I wanted anyone to get from my post I feel you missed. The extreme religious people (any people of any view) can and should have their opinion, but why must these people try to force their views into law? The point of my post was to ask people to consider two things on any issue and consider them separately. 1) What is your opinion 2) What is the legal, constitutional, and American view (the one that should be law). Homosexual marriage was just an example. You can not like homosexuals, you can not want your church to marry them, you can have any opinion you want. However someone that understands America would never want their beliefs (those beliefs) forced upon everyone else by law.



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Semantics
(Anonymous)
2004-06-10 10:18 am UTC (link)
(Jed) First of all calling it union instead of marriage is not the same, it is different. Separate but equal was not the same, it was different.

(My reply) This is why I proposed (perhaps not until my second post) that everyone gets a legal union that provides equal protection, this in replacement of a marriaage license. Then if they chose to have a ceremony, they can. I see this as very viable. If a heterosexual couple gets "married", what should be called "legally united", at a courthouse by a judge and never sets foot in a church or in front of a minister they are still just as married in the eyes of everyone but God right? So then would be gays with a legal union and no religious marriage. Read the title, this shit is all semantics.

(Jed)The only point I wanted anyone to get from my post I feel you missed. The extreme religious people (any people of any view) can and should have their opinion, but why must these people try to force their views into law?

(my reply) Why does any minority get to force their opinions into law? (Does affirmative action really help anyone?) Remember, gays are the minority here. I would dare say because, admittedly I have no hard evidence, that there are more people who oppose gay marriage than are for it. So as I see it gays are the minority forcing a change to thousands of years of understanding of what constitutes a marriage and you have the audacity to call the people who still subscribe to the old notions unamerican? That is so typically liberal. "My way is better than your way because I am so open minded and progressive" Don't be so vain. Is it your opinion that the American view and the legal, constitutional view are one in the same. I say they necessarily are not. If there were a minority of "dark haired german almost economist tech supporters" that were trying to get a law passed that gave them the right to drink all the free beer they wanted I bet you'd be all for that wouldn't you? Even though you would be forcing your belief that you deserve free beer onto all the bar owners and beer makers and by virtue of higher prices all the rest of us. That is a silly example but I hope you get my point. Minorities get laws passed all the time. And the people who don't want gay marriage probably aren't a minority. We need to debate minority rights by itself another time.

You are seeing this a black and white issue of constitutional rights, and to some degree I think that is correct. But the larger issue is not as black and white and I think there are enough people out there on the other side of the issue that, if nothing else should be heard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Semantics
[info]jherzog
2004-06-10 10:46 am UTC (link)
A law granting the most intelligent people in the world (i.e. dark haired German almost economist tech supporters) free beer would take away rights from the barkeeps and beer manufacturers. Granting homosexuals the right to marry would not take away anyone’s right to do anything (except discriminate).

Not every law concerning a minority should be passed. However No law discriminating against ANY group of legally abiding people should EVER be passed.

I do have the audacity to call anyone who wishes to discriminate against a group of legally abiding people unAmerican. Regardless of how long those discriminatory practices have been about. We discriminated against African Americans for 92 years (1776-1868) and I call all of the views that did not support the 14th amendment unAmerican. We discriminated against women for 144yrs (1776-1920) and I call all of the people that did not support the 19th amendment unAmerican. We have been discriminating against homosexuals for 228yrs (1776-2004) and I call all of the views against legal homosexual marriage un-American.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Deleted post)
Re: Re: Yadda Yadda
[info]agualadie
2004-06-10 12:29 pm UTC (link)
A-a-a-a-amen. Well said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Re: Yadda Yadda
[info]phluffhead420
2004-06-10 01:10 pm UTC (link)
OOPS!!! HAD TO REPOST AFTER REALIZING I MISSPELLED A PRETTY IMPORTANT WORD IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

Really quickly, before I drop my 2 cents into the discussion on homosexual marriage, Jed, we discriminated against African-Americans far longer than just 92 years. Brown v. Board of Education took place in 1954 and Rosa Parks was arrested in December of 1955 for refusing to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, AL. Oh yeah, and Rodney King was beaten by 4 white LAPD officers April 29, 1992.

Now onto my thoughts on homosexual marriage....

As has been touched on already, this fantastic country of ours was founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This pursuit of happiness in 2 homosexuals being legally joined in marriage should not be denied because someone feels it is morally wrong. It is straight up DISCRIMINATION and goes against everything our forefathers fought for when they revolted to break free of oppression from England. It is 100% ok (great, actually, because it starts thoughtful discussions like this one) to disagree with topics like this. It is part of your basic freedoms living in this country to be allowed to disagree. Be thankful you can express your opinions in a peaceful manner and not be arrested by government for being a free thinker. With gay marriages being legal, no one is going to force you into homosexual marriage against your will. So what gives you the right to force someone out of homosexual marriage against theirs???

As far as "marriage" being a word of the church, I'm calling bullshit on that too! Did the African-American urban community flip out when white surburban kids started listening to hip hop and using phrases like "off tha chain" or "da bomb"? Nope. Did they beg, plead and lobby with law makers to pass a law denying us (whiteys) from using these terms? Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but, sacred or secular, groups can't own terminology.

I'm fed up because personal opinions and emotions get in the way of common sense too often.

Lp
(proof reading saves embarrassment)

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2004-06-10 02:54 pm UTC (link)
As a political scientist this post is quite interesting, though some of the posts inaccurately use terms (clarify: we have a federal system; the form of government is republican). A friend of mine said that the brouhaha around this issue has been created by the right as subterfuge--directing attention AWAY from other important election year issues. Brilliant, but true, no? What about unemployment? What about the alleged weapons of mass destruction? What about the fact that the next President will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices?

How much of this discussion is really an attempt to thwart gay marriage, versus shaping the upcomming election away from other issues?

Prof. Pole


(Reply to this) (Thread)

:)
[info]agualadie
2004-06-11 04:35 am UTC (link)
Thank you for the clarification. I thought that by quoting the CIA World Factbook ("Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition") I was giving pretty accurate information. True, after reading your comment I see that I was reporting a generalized definition of our form of government. However, I think you're being nit-picky by saying I was inaccurate. Regardless, I appreciate your input, professor. It is food for thought.

PS... Jed I think it's so cool that your post is drawing comment from a real political scientist! :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…