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.

Illegal Adulter-ito

In this great “modern” world that we live in, some of our practices and laws are downright archaic. Take something as simple as adultery, the act of engaging in intercourse with a person that is not your legal spouse. Sounds bad, right? It’s nothing now. Adultery has surely been happening since before the concept of marriage. But try it in a marriage and shit hits the courtroom.

Outside of marriage, changing partners when you’re in a committed relationship is still considered cheating. But within marriage, a legally binding contract between two persons, cheating can be punishable in court. A slight majority of states consider adultery to be a civil matter, meaning it’s a problem between the adulterer and the injured spouse. The injured spouse can sue for damages such as emotional and financial distress, and loss of companionship. Adultery is an offense that is grounds for divorce and can affect divorce and child-custody proceedings.

However, in the slight minority of states where adultery is a criminal offense, things can get ugly. Making adultery into a criminal matter takes it from a solvable conflict between two parties to a punishable offense against humanity. Each state’s laws treat the offense differently. The punishment can range from a slight fine to life imprisonment, as a Michigan appellate court interpreted from that state’s adultery laws in 2007.

Yes, that’s right, a life sentence for cheating. I can understand suing, fines, and community service. But life imprisonment?! This simply goes too far. Too many of our laws date back to the founding of this country and the early settlers when things were seemingly different. In this case, I’ll name the Puritans as the scapegoat. The Puritans left England because they disagreed with how the religious state was run. Upon reaching America, the Puritans founded their communities by their religion and beliefs in living a simple life devoted to the “one true God.” This inclusion of church and state’s structure and rigidity in community and faith have influenced many of the morality laws and faith bases of this country today.

While the influences of the Puritans helped to build a fledgling nation into the power it is now, there comes a time when we as a country realize that we aren't Puritans anymore. We are no longer fleeing an oppressive rule. Instead, we are a nation of many: many people, many beliefs. It’s time that we accept that morality laws are not one-size-fits-all. It’s about time “when our nation can finally move beyond laws that require citizens to comply with the moral dictates of their neighbors.”

As always, there are people who want to make the laws stronger in respect to adultery and other issues related to marriage and sex, like the Minnesota Family Council who want to strengthen the state’s laws criminalizing a married woman’s adultery and a single woman’s consensual sex. We must not allow this religious persecution through the legal system. We can no longer flee that with which we disagree. We must stand up and fight against oppression. Marriage is at base a civil matter and therefore any issues between the two persons should be handled in a civil court. By criminalizing marital issues under morality codes, we are allowing the government to favor religious beliefs over secular justice, a clear violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, and laws making adultery, and non-marital sex, a criminal offense are unconstitutional and should be abolished.

Sources/Further Reading:

Adultery, in many states, is still a crime

The Puritan Movement: Influences on American History

Life sentence for adultery? Could be / Furor in Michigan when appeals judge says that's exactly what state law means

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Map: Is Adultery Illegal?

The Free Dictionary: Adultery

In 2014, N.H. lawmakers will debate whether adultery should remain a crime