The sanctity of marriage

In the late 1800’s, people fought to keep marriage defined as the joining of a man and woman of the same skin color. It wasn’t long ago that some people felt interracial marriage would ruin the “sanctity of marriage”.

Yesterday, that same spirit of intolerance, using the same flawed arguments, succeeded in passing an amendment to the California state constitution to retroactively invalidate the matrimony of any two people of the same gender.

The first amendment and article six of the constitution of the United States of America guarantee the separation of church and state by saying that no religion shall be unfairly recognized by the government.

Yesterday, the people of California ensured that the Christian bible’s supposed definition of marriage is the only one that can be recognized by the state of California by voting “yes” on Proposition 8. Yesterday, a blind eye was turned to the constitution by pandering to the desires the world’s largest, most influential cult.

1) This is an obvious repeat of the controversy surrounding interracial marriages. The same arguments being used then are being used now.

Just like the joining of a black man and a white woman was considered impure prior to Loving v. Virginia, the joining of a woman and another woman is being construed as impure today.

Only the word we use to describe this perceived impurity has changed; “miscegenation” has become “abomination”.

2) The majority of the funding for the Prop 8 campaign came from outside of the state of California.

Over $40 million in campaign funding came from the state of Utah alone (want to guess which institution?). It’s clear that the desires of the people of California are being trumped by a tyrannical outside party with deep pockets.

3) It is not the state’s place to define marriage.

If two consenting individuals want to make a contract between themselves to join in matrimony, that is their contract to make and the government’s job to uphold. If they wish to call that contract “marriage”, it is their right to do so, and the government’s job to recognize it.

4) The wedding of two people of the same gender doesn’t directly impact the rights of heterosexual couples.

Inevitably when I speak to supporters of Prop 8, they feel that they are being slighted. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for how gay marriage directly impacts their lives. Just a bunch of fear mongering that the “moral fabric” of our country will be destroyed.

Let me get this straight. Getting married to a stripper of the opposite sex in Vegas… OKAY. Getting married to someone you dearly love of the same sex… BAD. Loud and clear.

Gay people will continue to be gay regardless of if you let them marry the people they love. If ever there were an incredible uprising of gay pride, it will be in the aftermath of this unconstitutional marriage of church and state; the only marriage that can be considered a true abomination.

I’m hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court’s tradition of curtailing the state’s unholy affairs with religion in favor of civil liberties will hold strong when presented with the opportunity to overturn Prop 8 and all equivalent state amendments.

One thought on “The sanctity of marriage

  1. Here are some additional thoughts:

    There are those individuals that believe that they don’t ever consider others to be worthy of classification as second-class citizens. They feel strongly for the American concepts of equality under the law.

    If such an individual votes for and supports legislation that prevents non-heterosexual marriage, then that individual can be said to be supporting legislation that creates *inequality*. That individual, through their actions, is acting to make a minority group second-class citizens. This contradiction can be pointed out to them.

    If the individual counters saying that civil unions are acceptable, but marriage is not, it is easy enough to point out that this is functionally identical to “separate but equal” legislation that was famously overturned in the 50’s and 60’s.

    Such an individual is then forced to face the facts that their religious beliefs are incompatible with the legislation and ideals of American law.

Leave a Reply