The United States is the land of the free? President Bush’s backing of a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages exhibits the increasingly tyrannical swagger of the federal government. Gone are the days when Americans were able to reasonably believe individuals possess rights to freely act in pursuit of happiness so long as one doesn’t infringe upon the others’ equivalent rights. Instead, a gang, elected by less than 30 percent of Americans, dictates some politically complexioned moral code into legal coercion.
The push for such an amendment clearly trespasses upon the sacred ideals of liberty that fomented the American Revolution and is explicitly enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. If gays and lesbians were truly afforded equal protection of the law, then they would possess the same rights as heterosexual consenting adults. The push against same-sex marriage jeopardizes the liberty and civil rights of all in order to mandate a personal moral code.
The United States claims to promote and protect civil rights, but clearly, when government prevents one group from exercising rights held by others, civil rights are not protected.
George Bush believes the thought of homosexual couples marrying is unsettling, much like, others intuit, rap music, premarital sex and liberated women.
Bush’s effort to push his conception of morality into law necessarily abridges another constitutional provision: the separation of church and state. In the context of the constitution, I always thought that the freedom of religion necessarily implied the freedom from religion. However, by infusing his Christian faith into policy, Bush imposes rules on all Americans according to his perceptions of the Bible.
Some religions – many Buddhist sects, for example – commemorate homosexual relationships freely and seek authority to make such marriages legal. Thus, the United States government infringes upon their religious freedom. If one truly believes in religious freedom or the Constitution, the recognition that opposition to homosexual marriages emanates from religious contentions is reason enough to declare Bush’s argument invalid.
One can argue that marriage should exclusively be an institution between one man and one woman. However, who rightfully possesses the authority to define marriage? Those already married? That’s akin to letting bankers freely decide who gets the money in their vaults. Such an argument isn’t based on reason but upon prejudice.
Should we prevent homosexuals from marrying because they have lacked such a right in the past? Following this argument to its logical conclusion, a person living in the nineteenth century could use this same reasoning to discount the emancipation of slaves. Precedence does not sufficiently imply legitimacy.
George Bush believes that permitting same-sex marriages would jeopardize American society and that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilization.” Permitting homosexuals to marry would only increase social stability by increasing the number of couples that take on substantial commitments instead of passive understandings.
Civil unions cannot be considered a viable alternative to the preservation of the institution of marriage. Unions between homosexuals that have the same legal entitlements as marriages degrade the essentials of marriage that transcend legalities, the most important qualities that bind married people.. Undermining the conception of marriage as something greater than a legal agreement by substituting civil unions is a more dangerous policy than allowing homosexuals to make the marital commitments open to all other adults. Civil unions will not preserve the sanctity of marriage but demean it to merely a legal contract.
George Bush and the federal government, unlike homosexuals, infringe upon the so-called inalienable rights of the entire American citizenry and truly pose a threat to this most fundamental institution of civilization.
