constitutionalized discrimination

[low_delta]

Copy this sentence into your journal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.

I feel very strongly about the issue of gay marriage. It's probably the issue that makes me angriest. First of all, allowing some people to get married, but not others is wrong. So it's all or nothing. Either grant licenses to all, or to none. There are too many issues related to marriage to deny it to any committed couple. Not the least of which are taxes and property rights. Now if your church believes gay marriage to be wrong, fine. Don't perform any ceremonies. But we're not talking about your church, we're talking about the state.

The second thing, and it's the thing that bothers me the most, is that since the courts are ruling that not allowing gay couples to marry is unconstitutional, the people are changing the constitutions. This, to me, is horrible. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created by our Founding Fathers to enumerate our rights, not take them away. So we have people who choose believe that their god hates gays and people who find homosexuality to be icky, are teaming up to use the Constitution to force their feelings on others. Have you heard the saying "if you don't like X, don't do it"? These people believe that if you don't like something, you should prevent everybody from doing it.

Comments

[ethora.livejournal.com]

I could not agree more.

[rivendweller.livejournal.com]

I agree.

My priest agrees, too. He is very liberal. He voted for Obama. I like California priests ;-)

[blonnie.livejournal.com]

i agree w/everything you said.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

100% in agreement.

[dwivian]

I have to disagree on a few small quibbles.... but, the sentiment is something I share.

The Constitution was never designed to enumerate rights. It was presumed that people could figure that out on their own, but the founding fathers got it so wrong that an entire bill of enumerations (the Bill of Rights) was added just to try to fix the error. No, the Consitution is about setting guidelines, establishing boundaries, and acting as the supreme arbiter of what we hold dear.

Think you can grow up to be President? Not if you die at the age of 34. You have no right to run for office until you meet the rules. Think the President has the right to determine how to spend the country's treasure? Think again -- no such right exists, bound up in the separation of powers.

If people want to limit the country with other legislation and amendments, that's fine, but there is a reason it takes a serious set of votes, both from the bicameral system and from a clear majority of all the member state. We don't take such changes easily.

California, though, does -- they modify their constitution on a whim, by a simple popular vote. Next election things can be shifted in different directions. They are a very fluid state, with differences of idea and direction than the more conservative states. They lead the way, sometimes down the wrong path, so that when the conservatives finally catch up, we're going the right way. This is how it should be.

I am not allowed to enter into a contract with a minor without lots of intervention steps managed. Likewise, marriage is seen as a contract, and has similar restrictions. Restrictions on marriage, then, are nothing new. Clear boundaries were set in an effort to hold a constant position on what marriage is, and isn't. No more than two people, with an expectation of the potential of natural children born of that union, is the guiding principle. This is what the state protects, for the future of the state itself.

But, creating a 'separate but equal' form, in civil union, is wrong. It didn't work for the schools, and it shouldn't work here.

I vote we make ALL marriage contracts, at the state level, civil unions. You want a 'marriage', take that civil union paperwork to your church or other certifying body. But, the state will NEVER record it as anything but the minimum that is required. That's where it should stop.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

The Constitution was never designed to enumerate rights.

I disagree. I think there was disagreement amongst the founders w/r/t what the constitution was supposed to do, and the majority concluded that protection of fundamental rights was part of the constitution's task. Thus, the bill of rights.

Also, state constitutions have their own purposes and histories which are not coterminous with the federal constitution. California's constitution probably included provisions for rights at its very adoption (Minnesota's did, I know). If so, the California constitution is indeed designed to ennumerate rights.

[dwivian]

I agree that the Constitution is there to protect rights, but I continue to disagree that it has, as a purpose, the enumeration of rights.

This leads to the dangerous position of "if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't a right." I believe there are a myriad of rights that aren't enumerated, and the Constitution helps protect even those that aren't explicitly encoded.

Thus the blanket statement in the 10th, no?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I agree in that the state should call all marriages civil unions (and that there is only the one form of union). Calling it the same thing as the religious institutions do, makes it sounds like the state is sanctioning what the churches do. I think they should be considered two separate institutions (since they are two separate institutions).

One of the things that makes me angry is that people are so opposed to homosexuality, that many of these constitutional amendments ban not only marriage, but explicitly ban any legal union that is even similar to marriage.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

WORD.

[msfledermaus.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Kevin...this sums up a lot of what I've been feeling about this whole deal...