RSS
Home
Same-sex marriage and unions
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
As I have noted, the social conservative wing of the Republican Party has had, as a major concern, inter alia, the rights of unmarried persons, of the same or different sexual orientation, to marry or engage in substantially similar relationships. The opponents of those unions, at their core, rely on Biblical concepts or the tenets of their particular faith.
There can be no reasonable objection to those beliefs. The problem arises when those beliefs have legal consequences that affect non-believers, those who may belong to another church, and those whose concept of morality is grounded in a secular philosophical value system. Must those persons be restricted or otherwise impacted by the strongly held values of the former group?
I do not think so.
I discussed in a prior post my belief that many of the “morality” controversies (abortion, same--sex marriage and others) exist to some extent because of confusing and combining rights, obligations, enforcement and sanctions imposed by a particular faith or religion. Any violation of rules of a particular faith is, applicable to any member of that faith and can be punished by excommunication, denial of status and, at the extreme, eternal damnation.
The other system is imposed by the government on everyone, religious, secular or someplace in the middle. If you violate a statute, you may have punishment imposed by the state: fine, forfeiture, prison and in some cases, capital punishment. But the important aspect to keep in mind is that faith-based beliefs are not the concern of the state.
Bans and non-recognition of non-traditional marriage, as should abortion, should be considered with this in mind. As I explain, however, I consider the issue of same-sex relationships just as inter-racial marriage was 50 years ago, a civil rights issue. These are never to be resolved by a vote! Never.
With respect to those with opposing opinions, the current and on-going issues as to same-sex unions, should omit the word “marriage”. (That term is one with a religious subtext and what I feel is important are civil rights guaranteed by the government. If one’s religious beliefs forbid cohabitation between unmarried persons, of whatever sexual preference or orientation, so be it. Don’t do it.)
California’s recent approval of its Amendment 8 constituted a clear disapproval of the institution of legally registered and recognized marriage between same-sex couples. (Interestingly, a substantial number of black voters cast their ballots for the first black to be elected president while, at the same time choosing to deny basic rights of legal equality to those of another group who has been the object of discrimination. This is a topic worthy of much further discussion and analysis.)
I believe there to be a clear and unambiguous connection with the previous legal status of inter-racial marriage in the United States. I am compelled to give a little historical background. For many years in the United States, laws in many states made marriage between whites and non-whites, defined in various ways, illegal. Some laws merely invalided them, others imposed criminal penalties. There were, and still are, laws which criminalized unmarried persons from cohabitation; these are generally ignored, just as are statutes declaring adultery a crime. For now, the anti-miscegenation statutes will be my focus.
In 1958, Mildred Loving (nee Jeter) and Richard Loving, she black and a Native American and he, white, residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, were married in the District of Columbia to avoid application of the Virginia statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924”. They then returned to their home in Virginia where they were arrested for violating the Virginia statute barring marriages between any white person and any non-white person.
The opinion of the trial court was clear that its finding was based on Biblical precepts and should be considered,
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
This language has no place in the determination of legal rights and obligation; it is an imposition of religious viewpoints – sincerely believed perhaps by a majority of the people – upon people who have a different viewpoint.
Ultimately the Supreme Court held
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Now substitute the term “racial classifications” with “sexual orientation”. Sooner or later, the Courts, those activist judges, will be compelled to face up to the civil rights aspects of same-sex relationships and, in Florida, the unique and strange language in the newest amendment to the state constitution.
These rights are guaranteed by the United States Constitution and, therefore, all of the local and state prohibitions will, again sooner or later, be invalidated. In reality,
I believe the battle for same-sex marriage or unions is really over; the opponents just don’t know it yet.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
SLB has submitted her opening statement in which she takes issue with some of my views. To make matters clearer for the readers of these points of …
- Email criticisms and accolades to jstillman@iqzero.net
- Check out advertisers on this page
