Just as North Carolina becomes the 41st to use the popular vote to discriminate against a class of citizens (see sign to the right, they are still fighting integration and communism,) President Obama showed some leadership coming down on the side of democracy, the rule of law, and equality for all citizens in his support of same-sex marriage. What does it mean practically? Nothing in those 41 states (including California) and it will legislatively change nothing in the near-term.
Symbolically, in an election year, it means something very important. We have one candidate, Mitt Romney, who is at least consistent on this issue, who is an avowed bigot in favor of limiting certain citizen’s rights. We have another candidate, President Obama, who has declared (finally) that he believes in equality for all citizens. That makes a core part of each candidate’s value system visible for all to see.
Now for my friends (often religious) who say “the bible defines marriage as one man and one woman and it’s our job to protect traditional marriage” I say that’s a feeble defense for 3 reasons:
- The bible defines at least 8 different kinds of marriage: polygamous marriage; levirate marriage; marriage between a man, a woman, and her female property (slaves); a man, one or more wives, and one or more concubines; a male soldier and female prisoner of war; a male rapist and his victim; a male and female slave; and finally a monogamous union between one man and one woman.
Don’t believe me? Read your own holy book. You don’t get to pick and choose if you truly believe what you say with the bible defense of marriage. Furthermore, the confusion and lack of awareness of the people using the bible defense invalidates the claim of one traditional marriage type in the bible’s own words.
- So called “traditional marriage” between one man and one woman has been abused hugely in our society. Divorce rates are sky high, and that’s the true threat to marriage of all flavors.
If proponents of “traditional marriage” really believed in it as they claim, instead of banning same-sex marriage they would alter the law to criminalize divorce. To single out same sex marriage highlights the lie of the stated desire “to protect traditional marriage” as it ignores the core threat to marriage: divorce.
- Finally, if one were truly conservative in their outlook, one would see this issue in a Constitutional light. It’s about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “all men (people) are created equal.” We don’t legislate discrimination in our society. It’s antithetical to the core of our philosophy.
Forget about the specific issue of same-sex marriage, substitute something like “a citizen may not own labradoodle mixed breed dogs” to protect the pure-bred labrador retriever and poodle populations. Not only would most citizens say this stance is ridiculous, they would laugh it out of any government setting. This is not a place for government intrusion except for the protection of the class of citizen that is targeted with biased legislation that curtails their Constitutional Rights. If you can legalize bigotry on one issue like same-sex marriage, why not on another with people who want to own labradoodles?
I predict, much like Prohibition in the 1920s, that as a nation we will look back on this issue in the future and wonder how such a large percentage of our population behaved like asshats over such an obviously silly issue. So, my message to you if you are one of the bigots that wants to ban same-sex marriage: stop behaving like an asshat and get with the program.
Why? Because some couple’s same-sex marriage has the same impact on your marriage and life as a person somewhere in the world drinking a beer has on your sobriety. None. Nada. Not a single thing. Live and let live.
By all means, be true to your ideals: don’t marry someone of the same sex. But stay out of the lives of people who do want to exercise their rights as citizens. It’s simple really. It’s obvious. And it’s the morally correct path.