So I've been doing a lot of thinking about this whole marriage issue, and it just gets more and more confusing. So I decided to sit down and do a little ground-floor philosophical examination.
What gets repeated incessantly is the need to protect the "sanctity of marriage." This is the bit that confuses me. And if it means what I think it means, why is it the business of any government -- federal, state, county, local -- in the U.S.?
So I looked up sanctity. First definition: Holiness of life and character. If we work from this definition, and this seems to me to be the most likely of the definitions, those who are trying to ban gay marriage are doing it on religious grounds. But it is specifically verboten to do so. I don't know of any gay marriage advocates who also advocate forcing churches who are ideologically opposed to gay marriage to bless such unions. That, I'm pretty certain, would fall under 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Necessarily, then, such an amendment would come into conflict with and would at least partially invalidate that clause of the first amendment. The degree to which it does so would depend on how conservative the Supreme Court is feeling the day it has to rule on the question. (I'll admit this is a little bit of a straw-man argument, since I know the FMA actually does not include the phrase 'sanctity of marriage' -- I'm pretending it does as a conceit to make my point)
I normally shun slippery-slope arguments, but in this case we're talking about precedent and Constitutional interpretation, and the implications of a situation like this reach far beyond this single issue to the fundamental relationship between our government and establishment of religion.
So we move on, then, to the second definition Merriam-Webster offers: The quality or state of being holy or sacred (pretty much the same thing as before), appended with a link indicating synonymity with 'inviolability'. Turning there, we see that something inviolable is something secure from profanation (as in, treated with abuse, irreverence or contempt; or, debased by a wrong, ugly or vulgar use).
Now we're getting somewhere. In order for the institution of marriage to be 'profaned', then gay people who want to get married can't be serious. They must be trying cynically to abuse the system. They can't be in love. They can't love the way a man and a woman can. For gay marriage to be 'wrong, ugly or vulgar,' homosexuality must itself be 'wrong, ugly or vulgar'. So I think now we're getting down to the nut of the issue.
Protestations to the contrary set aside, proponents of this ban are fundamentally opposed to homosexuality and are trying to enshrine this opposition, this discrimination, this prejudice, in the Constitution.
People don't like banning things, even if they don't agree with them. Look at the flag burning amendment.
Now is not the time to froth at the mouth over the blind indifference of the hopelessly conservative. At least now their agenda is out in the open.
They're going down in flames. Or I'm goin' to Canada. Simple as that.
What gets repeated incessantly is the need to protect the "sanctity of marriage." This is the bit that confuses me. And if it means what I think it means, why is it the business of any government -- federal, state, county, local -- in the U.S.?
So I looked up sanctity. First definition: Holiness of life and character. If we work from this definition, and this seems to me to be the most likely of the definitions, those who are trying to ban gay marriage are doing it on religious grounds. But it is specifically verboten to do so. I don't know of any gay marriage advocates who also advocate forcing churches who are ideologically opposed to gay marriage to bless such unions. That, I'm pretty certain, would fall under 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Necessarily, then, such an amendment would come into conflict with and would at least partially invalidate that clause of the first amendment. The degree to which it does so would depend on how conservative the Supreme Court is feeling the day it has to rule on the question. (I'll admit this is a little bit of a straw-man argument, since I know the FMA actually does not include the phrase 'sanctity of marriage' -- I'm pretending it does as a conceit to make my point)
I normally shun slippery-slope arguments, but in this case we're talking about precedent and Constitutional interpretation, and the implications of a situation like this reach far beyond this single issue to the fundamental relationship between our government and establishment of religion.
So we move on, then, to the second definition Merriam-Webster offers: The quality or state of being holy or sacred (pretty much the same thing as before), appended with a link indicating synonymity with 'inviolability'. Turning there, we see that something inviolable is something secure from profanation (as in, treated with abuse, irreverence or contempt; or, debased by a wrong, ugly or vulgar use).
Now we're getting somewhere. In order for the institution of marriage to be 'profaned', then gay people who want to get married can't be serious. They must be trying cynically to abuse the system. They can't be in love. They can't love the way a man and a woman can. For gay marriage to be 'wrong, ugly or vulgar,' homosexuality must itself be 'wrong, ugly or vulgar'. So I think now we're getting down to the nut of the issue.
Protestations to the contrary set aside, proponents of this ban are fundamentally opposed to homosexuality and are trying to enshrine this opposition, this discrimination, this prejudice, in the Constitution.
People don't like banning things, even if they don't agree with them. Look at the flag burning amendment.
Now is not the time to froth at the mouth over the blind indifference of the hopelessly conservative. At least now their agenda is out in the open.
They're going down in flames. Or I'm goin' to Canada. Simple as that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home