Freedoms

For the many, the word freedom has just as many meanings. In general, I think we can agree that freedom means not being held back or oppressed by some outer force.

With this in mind, I have a very difficult time understanding the oppression of a certain type of people. There is no more racial segregation, or slavery, or woman's oppression. The main oppression is currently that of the LGBT community. Such a statistically small group of humans that has this country in an uproar.

The arguments against gay marriage are not varied much and usually have a religious tone. Sanctity of marriage, sin of homosexuality, family values, etc. That's fine, I understand your concerns about someone else's basic human civil rights tarnishing your upstanding views of this church right.

That's just it, though. The institution of marriage is at base a CIVIL contract. Even when you marry in the CHURCH, you still have to sign a CIVIL contract to make everything legal. The LGBT community is fighting for their right to the CIVIL contract, not the CHURCH covenant. Therefore, if any legislation denies a group of people a CIVIL right, that legislation is unconstitutional, in my opinion.

A New Orleans U.S. District judge just upheld a law banning same-sex marriage in Louisiana. I was ready to read the opinion with bias against the judge. However, having just now read the ruling, I actually understand why he ruled to uphold the ban.

Here are a few key points that stand out to me:

1. Protected Class - Members of the LGBT community are not legally considered a protected class (yet). Therefore, any legislation banning them from civil rights is actually constitutional.

2. Fundamental Right - This was an interesting bit for me. We so quickly throw out the term "fundamental right", however the right has to be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" to be considered fundamental. In this manner, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, it's a fairly new concept that is not as deeply rooted in our history.

3. Can of worms - If the courts are to allow same-sex marriage, where does that stop? The judge gives the examples of aunts and nieces, brother and brother, minors, polygamy, a transgender spouse. While some of these are a bit silly sounding, there will be need to be precedents set to limit this equally loving relationships. The court is not able to focus on same-sex marriage without considering any potential future repercussions. The plaintiffs were unable to say why these "unusual" unions "would result in 'significant societal harms'" yet same-sex wouldn't.

Throughout the opinion, Judge Feldman seems to side with the defendants, who seemed more prepared, than with the plaintiffs, though he is sympathetic to their pleas. This makes it seem as if the judge is biased against same-sex marriage, but I believe that in his writings he shows that he is trying to be unbiased. He acknowledges the different viewpoints and shows which arguments helped and hindered each side. He supported his opinion with legislature and other Courts' opinions. In the end, he seems to fervently hope that this issue is resolved "democratically" but says that he cannot rule to release the ban because same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right of a class that is not protected when there is the historic and traditional legislation in place for the greater good of the people. He ends by saying that if plaintiffs can establish a "genuine dispute regarding a First Amendment violation on this record" this outcome would have been different.

I support equality among humans. I know the granting the civil right of same-sex unions is a huge scary big deal for the States and Country and its people. There will come a time when all people will be treated equal. If you are active in supporting the cause, don't despair. It may take a generation for positive legislative change, but it will happen.

Opponents will continue making it a religious issue. Like Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins: "This decision is a victory for the rule law, and for religious liberty and free speech which are undermined anywhere marriage is redefined." (nola.com) This is not a religious fight, it's a civil fight. I'm not sure how allowing two persons of the same sex a right to a civil union will do anything to undermine your religious liberty... Someone please explain that to me.

So, I ask that you take a moment and read the opinion. I hope you find that he wasn't putting down same-sex marriage any further than it is but rather that he was unable, given the material provided, to find enough reasonable cause to overrule current legislation.

Semantically Separate but Equal

Semantics are a bitch. They create such schisms in today’s world that have polarized the populations of the earth into those for or against (insert issue here). Most recently, the issue of the fundamental civil right of two persons to form an official civil union in the eye of the state has made its way to the US Supreme Court. Wait, you say, that right already exists. Ah, this is where semantics enter the game. Try this fragment: “the fundamental civil right of two persons to marry in the eye of the state.”  The above statement sounds perfectly fine also, but when you change that to “the fundamental civil right of two persons of the same sex to marry in the eye of the state,” shit hits the proverbial fan. But what if you were to say “the fundamental civil right of two persons of the same sex to form an official civil union in the eye of the state”? Confused? So is the rest of the world.

First, a little history. The concept of marriage is as old as society. The word is more recent, Middle English originating from Latin ^{1 2}. Before the word marriage was coined, union was the oft used term. A union is a binding of people, things or ideas to a common goal. Marriage at its beginning meant basically the same thing, but the roots of the word come from the words for woman and man. Marriage, as we understand it, is end result of the traditional ceremony that joins two people via an appropriately vested religious figure. Now, throw homosexuality in the mix and, again, shit hits the proverbial fan. That’s because religious teachings tell us that it is “an abomination for one man to lie with another as he would a woman” ³ and that marriage is a sacrament designed to produce new little children of God through the sanctioned sin of sex between heterosexuals ⁴. Therefore, an abomination in the eyes of God simply cannot be married under God. Hence why so many people are opposed to gay marriage.

However, we are also taught that “all things, great and small, are God’s creations” and that we should “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Archbishop Gregory Aymond sums this up pretty well: “People of the same sex attraction, we love them as God’s people, we want to be in community with them, but we very much disagree on marriage for people of the same sex.” ⁵ So, if I understand this correctly, homosexuals were created by God and Jesus said to love them. But it’s not cool for them to marry because marriage involves sex and procreation, which is an abomination and not physically possible, respectively. Well, that’s quite understandable in a religious way. As a non-religious person, I can even respect your position in as much as it’s a core belief and you’re sticking to it.

My first concern with this whole hullabaloo is that one set of people is denying another set of people the right to a legal union. My second concern is in the semantics: by using the word marriage, the question of civil rights is taken out of the courtroom and into the church. Marriage is a civil union with the extra step of being blessed by God. Using the term “gay marriage” is offensive for people who believe in the traditional meaning of the word marriage, generally Christians, who will fight to keep the sanctity of this meaning. I really wonder, had it been coined as “gay union,” if there would not be such uproar over the issue. Think about it: the LGBT community is simply asking for the same civil rights as any civil union between two people. They’re not asking for God Himself to bless these civil unions, just the courts. Where’s the civil harm in that?

Ah, the harm is the fact that we live in a country that people insist is Christian founded and governed, even though the original Constitution was very careful not to promote one religion over another. ^{6 7 8} Then they insist that allowing gays a legal civil union will destroy the institution of marriage, by calling it marriage, and harm their children. Instead, this should be taken as an excellent learning tool. We can teach our children that love really does conquer all. That freedom is worth fighting for. That everyone can be happy. But most importantly, we can teach future generations to respectfully disagree with another person without denying their civil rights.

We as a people have no right to deny another person their rights because we don’t agree with who they are. I believe one day all people will have equal rights, but as history has shown us, that equality doesn’t happen instantly and certainly not without a fight.

 

Sources:

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

---

1 http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/1021/ ^↩
2 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry ^↩
3 Leviticus 18:22 ^↩
4 tp://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm ^↩
5 http://www.fox8live.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8712798 ^↩
6 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html (First Amendment) ^↩
7 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html" (section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) ^↩
8 http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god ^↩