Food for thought

For the few readers that follow my blogs, you will notice that I haven’t written much of late…  It hasn’t been for want of topic or absence of thought, which has never been a problem.  This drought has been, like so many others, an ability to focus on a topic or thought to completion.   This time the new variables contributing to the concern of this moving focal point have taken me down a different path.  I think part of my block is result of trying to focus on what I thought I wanted to write… rather than focusing on finding that topics I really feel a passion to write. 

Recently, I was listening to one of the Sunday morning political shows and heard a couple of more moderate conservatives – Yup, it wasn’t a Fox News program – proclaiming that that issue of Gay Marriage rights should not be before the Supreme Court, instead the question should, more logically, be left the individual states to decide.  I disagree, and not for emotional, religious, or anti-religious reasons, but rather, simple logic legal grounds.

First, let’s remember that the idea that marriage is simple a sacred endeavor, ended long ago.  While a male and female couple can go into any church of their choosing to be wed, the marriage will not be recognized legally until the license is filed with the appropriate government entity.  And, that same couple can be married by a variety of non-religious entities, and still have the marriage legally recognized with the submission of a properly endorsed license to the government.  So…  The idea that marriage is some sacred religious event to be protected from any and all desecration is ridiculous.  I would contend that, divorce is a greater sacred defilement of marriage, and yet, I see no campaign to legislate against it.  Marriage is, and has been for many decades, a legal issue.

But more importantly, I believe, are the thoughts that came to me during that news program…

Allowing the issue of gay marriage to be legislated on the individual state level creates a dangerous environment.  Even more dangerously on the local, county or city level.  My wife and I as a heterosexual married couple can go to, or reside in, or take a job in any state in the USA, and have that marital contract recognized with all the associated legal rights without question, regardless of what state originated the contract.  Any LGBT couple legally married in a state recognizing their union, would be restricted to living or working only in states that recognizes such marital contracts.  An even more dangerous environment is created by the Supreme Court allowing the individual states determine their own constitutionality of Gay Marriage.  Individual states, once ruling by their constitutions the definition of marriage, could then begin to legislate penalties such marriages.  Imagine, an LGBT married couple traveling through a traditional marriage state, being challenged to legally prove or disprove their status.  In Arizona today, you can be stopped for being Hispanic, simple to prove you have a right to be in the country.  Do we allow law enforcement to stop a couple for being gay?  Imagine checking into hotel in a traditional marriage state, or not being allowed to check in, because of your marital status, or even having your hotel door kicked in by the police because of that status.  I know this may sound rather draconian, but, when you taken into consideration the money and effort being expended by some organizations to prevent gay marriage, it is a reasonable assumption.  The significant portion of the funding for Prop 8, here in California, came of Utah.  You make the connection.  Or, what about the Westboro Baptist Church, using the burial of US Servicemen and woman as their venomous outlet to protest the gay community.

There is nothing in all of this that purports to assert that any religious entity must conduct, support, or condone such marriages, nor is there any requirement that they change their view of marriage as a sacred contract.  There are many religious viewpoints in this country and we cannot legislate for each and every one of them, without violating the rights of others. 

Unless we are willing to preserve and protect the rights of all citizens in this country, none of our rights are guaranteed.  Yes, we live a society that believes in majority rule.  Fortunately, we have an overarching document that is designed to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.

This is most definitely an issue which should be decided on a federal level, and with the Constitution as the basis for its resolution, not religion.

Your comments or questions are always welcome.  If you have something to add, please feel free to contact me at mr.grumpyguy@gmail.com