Ignorance

I'm not likely to provide any new perspectives in this post, but I wanted to capture my own thoughts and perspectives. 

It is in our very nature to look for people or groups who do not fit in to our society, or at least the vision we have of our society. When tolerance and common sense finally allow us to recognize our faults, we simply shift our ignorance to another group.  Ultimately one would hope that we can begin to recognize this and stop the cycle, but I fear that may never happen.  It's fine to distrust others; it's when we use that distrust to enforce our perspectives on others that things get ugly.

So let me start with a few assumptions.  First, I'll make the assumption that most people would agree with the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Now, if we assume "these truths to be self-evident" then we can make a few other assumptions as well.  What is the primary purpose of any "law" in our government? Well, obviously it's first purpose is "protection".  But if we keep in mind the first assumption, we can better clarify the nature of law...  Beyond just protection, the purpose of any law is not to protect me from myself, but rather to protect me from anyone who would hinder my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This can be seen by the fact that most common laws are created to "prevent" certain activities.  You cannot drive faster than this limit, you cannot steal, you cannot rape, you cannot kill.  All of these laws are designed, not to enforce our "moral beliefs" but to protect individuals from being negatively affected by the actions of others (there would be no speed limit laws if speeding was completely incapable of harming others).  However, there are also laws which prescribe actions.  You must pay taxes (is just one primary example).  But even these laws are meant to "protect".  We have these laws not because we are trying to enforce a moral code, but because we "protect" fairness.  Without these laws, some individuals would most certainly never pay their taxes, which over burdens those who do. 

Now unfortunately there are laws which have been passed which seek to do more. And despite your personal and moral beliefs, it seems imperative (to me) that we understand that the nature of any law should be to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness from any group or individual who would attempt to take that away.  [And yes this means, despite my own personal beliefs, laws against the personal use of drugs really violate that premise - but I'll save that for another day.]

So now we come to the irony, and the primary purpose of this post.  There is a movement going on right now which seeks to define marriage as only the right of a male and female, essentially depriving gays and lesbians from the right of marriage (and this actually recently happened in North Carolina).  I say ironic, because if we accept the assumptions listed above, this law would (and does) allow the government to deprive individuals of their basic rights because of the religious intolerance of others.  If we accept those fundamental concepts, then in truth, there should be a law that states, no one shall prevent the marriage of two consenting individuals.

Yes, marriage is a religious sacrament.  And if there is no religious denomination that is willing to "marry" 2 individuals, then so be it.  But marriage is also a legal recognition of 2 individuals entering into a legally binding contractual obligation that provides for certain benefits and protections.  For example, being "legally married" allows me to cover my spouse on my Health Insurance policy.  Being "legally married" allows me to file as such for taxes and claim the same benefits as any other married couple. 

But more importantly (perhaps) is the fact that "allowing" any 2 consenting individuals the right to "marry" doesn't in any way impact the rights of those who choose to marry in the traditional fashion.  Legalizing gay marriage does not deprive anyone of their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; denying that right does.

Obviously this discussion could go on forever.  Right wing conservative Christians want to use the Bible to attack gay marriage.  The validity of that approach can certainly be debated.  You can also point to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's for African Americans (as well as Women's Rights) as examples of past intolerance's.  Perhaps we still have strides to make in these areas, but we are certainly much further along than we were 50 years ago.  I can only hope that it doesn't take us 50 years to reach the same conclusion with respect to Gays and Lesbians (or any other minority).  There are many ways to debate this issue.  But for me, there is nothing to discuss.  If we can agree that laws are not meant to enforce the beliefs of one group or individual, but instead to protect its citizens' civil liberties - then this entire subject is moot.  If you do not want homosexuals in your church, that is your right.  You want to use your Freedom of Speech to speak out against Homosexual behavior?  That, too, is your right.  But if you want to deny others the same basic rights that all human beings should have, then you have crossed the line.  And there should be laws which prevent that. 

Ignorance is only blissful to the ignorant; it's hell for those subjected to ignorance.

This time, I'm not completely wrong...