There is a group of people who think that marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman for as long as they both shall live. This commitment results in stable families, stable communities, and provides the nuclear understanding of the fundamental unit of a cooperative society. Divorce violates this commitment and is accorded the status of a moral wrong. Homosexual partnerships violate the reasonable requirement that the marriage partners be of opposite sex. This is not discrimination against homosexuals – the definition was not crafted to exclude them. This group of people will never accept "gay marriage".
There is another group of people who think that marriage is about emotional feelings and the assertion of the fundamental human freedom to determine a life path. They view the marriage commitment as an expression of the autonomous self. Since homosexual selves have no different inherent worth from heterosexual selves, they claim the civil right of marriage in order to assert their equality in humanity with fellow Americans. To be prohibited from this granted right is to become second-class citizens and to be treated in a way that is sub-American.
Given their presuppositions, either of these groups could be legitimate in their understanding. What we have here is a genuine disagreement. That is why, in America, we have political debate and a separate legislative branch. The people have a right to decide which of these two philosophies most accurately reflect the basis for our laws on this subject. This debate may occur during the legislative or constitutional amendment processes.
It does not occur when activist judges assert their own personal dogma on the rest of society. It does not occur when renegade mayors violate the laws of their land and command underlings to participate in illegal activities. It does not occur in violent conflict.
I wish gay and pro-homosexual Americans would not violate the principles of American democracy in their attempt to claim a right that the democracy provides.
I like the site.
Posted by: s.f. danckaert at February 26, 2004 01:58 AMWhy, thank you sir.
Posted by: Blandus at February 28, 2004 09:45 PMI agree with you that what the Mayor of San Francisco is doing is deplorable. Not for what he's doing, but for what he's not doing. He should have committed himself to jail by now, and done real civil disobedience, instead of throwing the rule of law out the window. I do think judicial interpretation of the Constitution (state or federal) is legitimate. And do you really want the government to be defining what the family is? Doesn't that set a bad precedent? I think rational people on both sides should be uniting to push for marriage to be taken out of the realm of government entirely, and let the states define civil unions, benefits, and tax breaks as they will.
Posted by: Shade at March 8, 2004 10:33 PM