This Field Can Be Edited Later

In the United States we live in a fairly democratic society where the citizens can have a significant influence on the laws that govern the larger society. This power that the citizens hold, while allowing them to maintain consent to the laws that govern them, presents a danger inherent to democracy: that the laws and policies of government are subject to the passions of the people. It then becomes necessary for the public to debate the proper role of government, and the reasoning behind our laws.

This nation was founded with the idea that all are created equal, and that we are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From these ideals we can also derive the first basic function of government and the factors to be considered in the making of laws namely the protection of both liberty and life.  Other factors include morality, ethics, and the well-being of the society.

The protection of liberty is one of the chef roles of government and probably the most integral to the law-making process as well as possibly the most difficult to maintain. In defending liberty it is first necessary to understand what it is. Liberty is inherent in the fact that we as human beings exist equally, and in that we exist equally we should be allowed to move equally within our spheres freely and securely according to our own conscience; limited only from infringing upon the sphere of liberty of another.

In an essay by Ezra Benson called, The Proper Role of Government he states, “It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens” (Benson). Yet though this is the government’s “most important single function” even under our own republic some members of our society have had their right to liberty grossly infringed by not only people but by our laws as well. The oppression of women and African Americans among other minority groups in our history represents sad examples of how our laws, though democratically founded, have been used to restrict liberty of the few or the week by the will of the ruling mob.

Another example of the loss of rights through the democratic process was the enactment of the Sedition Act in 1798. This law infringed directly upon the freedom of speech with regards to criticizing the government, and the rights of assembly. The law explicitly forbid, “scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States,” beyond this when it came to laws passed by the government, “… to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act… ” (Sedition Act 1798) was also prohibited. Fortunately the law was allowed to expire in 1801, but it is an example of how fragile our liberties can be.

Because liberties and rights can be so easily discarded or blocked by popular legal movement it is therefore prudent in the reasoning of our laws that we keep in the public’s mind the ideals of liberty so that our laws are a means to maintain liberty rather than the cause of oppression. To take a quote from Hammurabi’s Code we should strive to use our legal system, “To bring about the rule of [law] in the land so … that the strong should not harm the weak” (The Code of Hammurabi).

Along with liberty comes the right to life and security for our liberties. The right to life not only represents a right to live, but also a right to act in defense of your life, or to work with others for defense, or on behalf of others against hostile assailants. In the institution of government this represents the power of the people through government to delegate provisions for the defense of their lives, or to, “provide for the common defence [sic],” as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution.

While we use government to defend life, a proper recognition of the right to life requires that we must also be free from the danger of the government terminating our lives, or depriving us of life. This ideal is however gray. Though the government is in effect hired to defend the lives of its people certain situations often require lethal force against a member of the society for the sake of protecting others of the society. An example of this can be seen in the events of February 12, 2007 when in the Trolley Square Mall of Salt Lake City Utah, Sulejman Talović shot and killed five bystanders and wounded at least four others. The shooting rampage finally ended when Talović, though a member of the society, was shot and killed by a police officer (Associated Press/KSL News). This action, though ending a person’s life, it also potentially prevented the loss of further life. The execution of a murderer is also defended as a just punishment for crime and also as a prevention of a person who has killed from killing again.

 If we have the right to life it is also questioned if we should have the right to terminate our own life, or even request aid in our self termination. The legality of a right to die or to have assistance in ending one’s own life was called into question when in 1998 it was brought to the public’s attention that Dr. Jack Kevorkian had not only provided a client with a lethal injection but also performed the injection himself. Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree homicide, and served just over eight years before he was paroled for good behavior (Jack Kevorkian). In society whose own founding documents espouse both life and liberty the right to die raises significant legal and emotional questions in the maintenance of these ideals in our laws.

Closely associated with the responsibilities of protecting life and liberty is also the responsibility to preserve security while practicing our liberty. Though this does mean that we protect ourselves from hostile threats, or from being robbed, or otherwise maintain our safety; it also means that we must guard ourselves from losing our liberties or rather from falling under oppression. The demands of both liberty and safety can at times leave use in a peculiar balancing of the two.

A quote that is attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Benjamin Franklin). This sentiment represents the idea that when we give up liberty to our government for the sake of safety that we are no longer safe from having our rights infringed by the government.

In an article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for the New York Times December 16 2005 it was reported then president George W. Bush had by presidential order authorized a National Security Agency program for eavesdropping on Americans along with other residents of the United States, “…to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying” (Risen). Although protecting ourselves from terrorists is a worthy and essential pursuit for our government, in this case it came at the cost of our government prying into our personal privacy without the probable cause for the issuing of a warrant. To some monitoring our communications may seem like a small price to pay for safety, yet accepting such action still represents us abandoning some of our rights, and even if one believes that a current president will only use such powers justly we cannot be sure that any future president will continue to be just in the use of these powers.

After some debate on the legality of the president’s actions and a temporary granting of the eavesdropping programs by Congress, in 2008 a new surveillance bill was passed called the “FISA Amendments Act of 2008” which prohibited the warrantless surveillance of domestic communications but allowed the government to continue to eavesdrop on international communications even if those communications originated with in the United States for seven days before a warrant was required  (FISA Amendments Act of 2008). Although this law limits the government’s ability to spy without warrant on its people it has not eliminated it. Currently its constitutionality is still being publicly debated, while reports of abuse have been brought to the public’s attention.

One such abuse was reported on by Scott Shane also of the New York Times. In his report Shane included details about how government eavesdroppers were instructed to transcribe everything even upon protest from the government workers performing the work. The report also includes that eavesdroppers would often record the personal calls between Americans calling their loved ones overseas. Not only were the government workers listening in, as the report reads, “… the eavesdroppers would swap recordings of intimate calls for entertainment. ‘At times I was told: Hey, check this out. There’s some good phone sex,’ ” (Shane). The fact of the matter is that while we must work for our safety it is imperative that we don’t do it at the expense of our liberties and protected rights. For if we give up our liberties we cannot expect government not to abuse what we have given up.

In the process of making laws we may question what role morality should play in our legal system or if we should legislate morality at all. The answer to the second question is yes of course; the morality or perhaps the ethics of a law should be a primary question asked when determining if a law should be enacted. The answer to the first question is a bit more complicated especially because many people have different perceptions of morality. It is often agreed upon that murder is immoral because it infringes upon the victim’s right to live. In many places smoking in public venues and establishments is also illegal be it is recognized that the smoke from tobacco is toxic and smoking in the public places infringes on the rights of others to be free from the toxic smoke. There are, however; many other issues of morality that people do not agree upon. Subjects like religious prevalence in state institutions, abortion, and same-sex marriage among other things are often hotly contested in the law-making process.

One of the principles of liberty is that we are free to act according to our own conscience, so long as we do not infringe upon the liberties of others. If this ideal is to be followed it requires us to allow people to believe how they will whether these be religious beliefs or some other world view. This is the reason that the first two clauses of the first amendment are, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that while people are free to believe what they will the laws however must not be used to promote one religion or another, indeed our laws must remain neutral to religion so long as that religion is not being used to infringe on the liberties of others.

People may be morally opposed to one thing or another but before a law should be made for that thing’s prohibition we should determine the origin for the moral that called for the prohibition. If the reasoning against it is religious should we make our laws only to satiate the beliefs of the religious? Or if the reasoning is not religious in nature, do we have reason enough to withhold or prohibit a right to something? Though governing your own life according to a held belief is a respectable liberty the prohibition of rights must have a purpose. Rights, whether new or otherwise, should not be withheld solely because of the stated beliefs of others, but should require evidence that extending them would infringe upon the rights of others.

An example of this can be seen in the way our laws treat the use of birth control. Some religions believe that birth control and contraceptives are immoral, and in some parts of the world the use of birth control either is or has been illegal, but do we impose those religions commandments against birth control onto people who do not believe that it is immoral? No, we let people who want or need to use birth control and contraceptives use them but we also let people who believe that it immoral to abstain from their use.

Furthermore while some things or practices may be contrary to one religion, another religion may affirm that thing or practice, and the government cannot give more or less value to one religion or the other. By not using laws to impose the commandments of one religion or another we not only protect the rights of the religious but also those that are not religious.

Along with morality and liberty the well-being of a society as a whole is one of the factors considered in the making of laws. This includes the creation of public programs for the benefit of the society. In this view the government can be looked upon as the employee of the voting public; allowing the people to vote to direct their collective resources to various projects or programs. In this case the people pay funds to the government by way of taxes to provide services for them. Because in a democratic society the government represents the will of the people programs and projects elected by the people should be seen as being owned by the public or society or run by them. These projects, while they may not constitute a right or liberty, the people of a society have the liberty to decide if they want to collectively provide for these programs. Many of these programs already in place include such things as public education, and the construction of infrastructure, subsidized farming, and law enforcement. Each society has to question what public programs it wants to fund or even if a program is affordable. As we make our laws we ask could ask ourselves if would be benefitted by public health care, or perhaps shifting funds to subsidize higher education would be a desired pursuit for the government.  Whatever the  social programs is it is no more than a means for us to work together to provide for our needs and lift the burden off individuals who would be unable to provide the function of these programs for themselves.

Along with public programs the well-being of the society also requires a certain consideration for the environment in which we live. In a similar fashion to how smoking in public infringes on the rights of those who do not wish to share in the smoke, we must also recognize that our environment is shared by all of us, not being careful of the pollutions that are released into the environment can adversely affect the quality of life of not just those living now, but also generations of children to come, and infringes on the right to live in a clean environment.

Moving forward as we continue to make and amend our laws it is important that carefully contemplate the reasoning behind the action we take. We must be sure that we publicly engage in debate to not only come up with solutions to problems that we face but also make sure that our liberties are not lost in the process of law making. Also recognizing that if we do not participate in our government the consequence is being ruled by the wills of those who do.

XR4-IT

As I read through the news from the past several days I am struck with a sense that our national culture is shifting; shifting much faster than I would anticipate. I am of course referring to the way our nation feels about same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships in general.

 Despite the setback to the gay-rights movement in November when Proposition 8 was passed stripping marriage rights away from same-sex couples the gay lobby has been persistent, and we have since seen some major victories for our cause. Over the past seven days two more states have legalized same-sex marriage. First Iowa legalized same-sex marriage by way of their Supreme Court through unanimous ruling overturning a statute that band same-sex marriage; citing it as unconstitutional. The second came from Vermont where, for the first time in the United States, same-sex marriage was legalized by legislation.

Both of these events signify the shift in American culture, especially the Vermont victory. The legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont was a major victory for the gay lobby not only because same-sex marriage was legalized, but because it was legalized through the state’s democratic process rather than by court ruling. While a court victory is still a valuable victory, the win in the legislator shows that the balance public opinion is tipping in favor of marriage equality.

Not only did the bill pass the Vermont state legislator, but its belief in marriage equality was reaffirmed after the governor vetoed the bill, and a super-majority was gained to override the governor’s veto.

The walls that block justice and equality are falling and may yet dissolve, for people are beginning to hear our calls and the ideals of liberty are being remembered.

Though this victory has been great the road is still long; fraught with unknown challenges, yet I cannot help but call out huzzah when I see such triumph.  

Huzzah!

-XR4-IT

Before I start I will confess that economics is not a field that has offered me much interest, but with our current economic environment where we have financial firms that are “Too Big to Fail” I have to take another look and ask myself is a Bank or other financial firm that is too big to let fail, too big to let exist?

Back when I was in High School it seemed that it was explained to me that we had laws that prevented these types of super firms from forming. I remember that back during the Great Depression that government did things like “Trust Busting” and braking up monopolies.

One law that was put in place during the Great Depression was known as the Banking Act of 1933 though commonly called the Second Glass-Steagall Act or just Glass-Steagall Act. This act provided a separation of bank types according to there business, and it prevented a commercial bank from merging with an investment bank, or with an insurance firm.

This law should have prevented the formation of firms like AIG or City Group among others, but in 1999 congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Named for the Bill’s key supporters in congress) Act which removed the separation of banking types, and allowed these super firms to develop.

The question before us now is what do we do with these super firms that have so pervaded our nation’s financial system that it would be devastating to us should we let them fail? Should they continue as the super firms that they are or should we go back to the days of banking regulation, and trust busting and break them down into less dangerous entities?

What do you think?

In both the documentary Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and the essay The Lost Art of Political Argument by Christopher Lasch the authors contended that the media had a profound influence over society; particularly the news media. While Lasch believed that it was the reasonability of the media to promote public debate, Chomsky contended that the media was a tool used to indoctrinate and control the citizens of a democratic society.

Before we can understand what influence the media has on society we must first understand how we as humans gain knowledge about ourselves and the world in which we live. In order to survive as a species and as a culture we work together to provide for ourselves and the larger community. Fundamental to our ability to work as a group is our ability to communicate information to one another.  If it were not for our ability to communicate and share knowledge we would know very little about the world in fact our understanding would be limited to what we could experience for ourselves, but we do communicate and are therefore aware of a much larger universe then small amount of territory that we are able to personally explore in our life time.

Not only do we communicate information, but we also express ideas; ideas about what is and what isn’t, and ideas about how our very society should operate. Today we have many means to propagate ideas. Not only do we incorporate conversation, but also books, news papers, websites, television, art, and music, or in other words we use media to express ideas.  In the course of things some ideas die with little consideration or acceptance while others are embraced by the larger society. This being the case it behooves us to determine what the best course of thought in governing ourselves is.

According to Lasch, “What democracy requires is public debate,” this he said was more important than simple information. Lasch also expressed his distress in a perceived level of political apathy among the American public. He attributed the apathy to a shift that in the way the commercial news media reported the news. “Debate,” he says, “began to decline around the turn of the [twentieth] century, when the press became more ‘responsible,’ more professional, more conscious of its civil obligations.”   Before this the press had been “fiercely partisan”, and a paper was a place where you would find a definite view and criticism of opposing views. To him the news media’s involvement in the political debate was fundamental in promoting political participation from the general public. However according to Chomsky it is the media that puts the bounds on public debate. Indeed he sees the mass media as a means to keep the public inline, believing whatever illusion that the media and government want us to believe.

In considering Chomsky’s view I return to the fact that in order to gain knowledge outside of our own experiences we must accept information from other people, but in accepting information from others we leave ourselves open to deception.  With at least this aspect of human nature considered it may be possible for a centralized media to manipulate a trusting public, but in order for the manipulation to be maintained they must first report enough verifiable fact so that the public will continue to trust the information disseminated.

Because so much of what we know comes from what others have communicated to us we must question how much of what we know is actually what is. For example I know that the Soviet Union was in power for 64 years because I read it in a text book. I trusted what that text book said because it was presented to be factual by another person whom I trusted. However I don’t know that the sources that were used to write the text book were accurate or if the authors of the book had some reason for giving false information, also if you have not read the same text book I have you would not know that it actually reported that the Soviet Union was in power for 74 years. Not only are we subject to receiving potentially flawed information from others and the media, but we are subject to the frailties of our own perception. Not only can our senses be tricked by simple illusions, but information we receive no matter how true will be colored by our own experiences and ideas as we receive it. Despite all of the flaws in our information Chomsky believes that, “People have the capacity to see through the deceit in which they are ensnared, but they have to make the effort.”

How do we “see through the deceit”? How do we keep from being sheep that let others think for us, or from being deceived by our own perceptions? To me it starts with being critical of what we know. Now I’m not saying that reject everything we thing we understand, but we must keep ourselves open to the idea that what we know may be false or flawed, yet move forward with what we know until we discover otherwise.

For individuals and societies to achieve freedom they must become educated and learn to think critically, for those who never learn to think critically are those who never think to question what they are told. While it is possible to come to conclusions or form an opinion on your own, in order to gain a more full view or reach further depths of thought it is helpful, possibly even necessary, to discuss with others an idea. “Until we have to defend our opinions in public,” says Lasch, “they remain opinions … half-formed convictions based on random impressions and unexamined assumptions,” and it is by way of conversation and media that we subject our ideas to scrutiny.

In our society we often hear the phrase, “Everyone has the right to their own opinion.”  While that is true, are all opinions equal? Should all opinions be given credence? Of course not, and it is by means of the public debate that information and opinions are given meaning; where we determine what we do give credence to. In fact according to Lasch, “It is the art of articulating and defending our views that lifts them out of the category of ‘opinions,’ give them shape and definition … In short, we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others.”

One of the risks or in my mind benefits of public debate is that course of persuasion we may see the flaw of our own point of view and shift our thinking accordingly, or as Lasch puts it, “We have to enter imaginatively into our opponents’ arguments, if only for the purpose of refuting them, and we may end up being persuaded by those we sought to persuade.” Not only does debate help us to be more critical of an idea, but discussion and debate opens the door for new ideas to form from the act of collaboration and debate.

Today we have many forms of media. Not only do we have the familiar commercial media, but with the expanding forum of the internet more and more individual users have the ability to make their own ideas or ideals available to anyone else who has access to the vast network, and criticism of our ideas is just as easily available. Along with user generated content we also have available to us the alterative views of the commercial news sources from other nations. Having such a vast amount of information and opinion available to us helps us over come Chomsky’s idea of deception by the omission of information. While navigating media and the seas of ideas however we mustn’t become subject to what Chomsky calls “simple propaganda”.  Also while the internet has provided a broader knowledge base for us to draw from the validity of a website’s information is often open to debate itself.

If freedom is an ideas which we want to maintain for ourselves we cannot leave our democratic society in the hands of dumb voters. Instead in order maintain freedom we must cultivate a society of critical thinkers who make the effort to join it and gain the understanding required to operate in our democratic society, for those who do not participate will live at the whims of those who do. 

We have to realize there is much more to the debate over same-sex marriage then a minority being discriminated against, and it’s not even completely about same-sex marriage; thought, that is the focus.

This debate is actually about idealism pertaining to the proper role of government, and the reasoning behind our laws. These debates are important and must take place if we are to maintain freedom for our democratic society. We need to continually make sure our laws are just and that the rights of the few are not simply cast aside by the will of the many.  Not only are these debates important for us to retain the rights we have, but they are also necessary in the process of extending rights to those who have been previously denied them.

In our own history voting rights were originally held only by land owning white men. When women wanted the right to vote there were many who saw that as a new right for women, many even made appeals to tradition or the Bible in an effort to withhold voting rights from women. Yet it was eventually recognized that for liberty and justice to be met the laws governing our nation had to be changed and that form of discrimination against women was allowed to end.

So we turn back to the current focus, same-sex marriage, and the reasoning behind the laws that govern if it is legal or not. If the reasoning against it is religious should we make our laws only to satiate the beliefs of the religious? Or if the reasoning is not religious in nature, do we have reason enough to withhold marriage rights from same-sex couples?

It is of course my opinion, and argument, that while government must allow people to believe what they will, the prohibition of rights must have a purpose. Rights whether new or otherwise should not be withheld solely because of the stated beliefs of others, but should require evidence that extending them would infringe upon the rights of others.

I am right now utterly frustrated with the gay lobby, practically actions recently taken by the Human Rights Campaign.

This passed week there was a documentary called Speechless-Silencing the Christians was supposed to air in Michigan. This apparently has been an ongoing documentary series that talks about how Christians are being silenced in America. This passed week the documentary was to focus on the “Homosexual Agenda” and how Homosexuals work to stop Christians from stating their beliefs about homosexuality.

Upon finding out about the plan to air the documentary The Human Rights Campaign sent out and e-mail action alert to their constituency and asked them to speak out against the airing of the program. The Michigan TV station has since pulled the program from its queue.

This action taken by the Human Rights Campaign amounts to no less than censorship, and the censorship of ideas that you do not agree with is not a tactic that I approve of. All the more ironic is that in taking the action that the Human Rights Campaign did they became guilty of what the very premise of the documentary accused the gay lobby of.

Freedom of speech is one of the pillars our American Civilization, and is fundamental to maintaining the other ideals that uphold our democratic republic. Moreover Ideology is not defeated by censorship, but it is only truly defeated by Ideology. Any platform that can only stand while apposing views are censored is a weak platform.

The worst part is that after having viewed the documentary myself I realized that most of the rhetoric used in it is easily put down and refuted. I believe more would have been gained by the gay lobby if the show had aired, because then we would have had the ability to enter into the debate and deconstruct their arguments and allow both our views and theirs to fall under the proper public scrutiny.

In the end not only have we given the people who maid the documentary more ammunition to use against our cause, but we have lost this opportunity to combat their views intellectually; and when we fail to meet an intellectual challenge to our views what does that say about our intellect or our the validity of our opinions?

All I have to say to the Human Rights Campaign and the larger gay lobby is: DUH! What were you thinking.

XR4-IT

It feels like it’s been forever since I last posted on my blog. I’ve had a lot going on but not really one thing that was of a decent writing length, so this update will just be a hodgepodge of things that I have had happen or have been on my mind recently.

After part way into December without much snow fall I was really quite excited when it did finally start. So much so I immediately went out and bought a sled and to go sledding with some friends.  I also took my little brother with me (I would have taken both of them but one was sick) which was fun.

Every Christmas eve my family gets together for a family talent show. This is especially fun because all of my nieces and nephews also participate even if the talent they share is simply the taping of a few keys on my mother’s piano seemingly at random. The only talent I have that is performable is the playing of a penny whistle on which I played A Poor Wayfaring Man of Greif which went well enough.

After the talent show we had a family trivia game where each family member wrote ten personal multiple choice trivia questions. It was fun and if I remember I’ll post my questions on my blog.

Overall Christmas was really fun and relaxing this year. It was a bit smaller than in the past, I actually only got presents for my parents.

For myself I ended up with a lot of clothes which was fine by me seeing as most of what I had been starting to look really worn. I also got 1984 and a book about John Adams both of which I have been enjoying.

After Christmas I got quite sick and missed a lot of work, but fortunately I’m back on my feet and ready for school to start.

There was another matter that I wanted to address.

Recently there has been much ado in the gay political community about Barack Obama’s selection of Pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration. Much of the gay community has expressed outrage at the selection because of Pastor’s history of speaking out against homosexuality in an out spoken manner.

I am actually not outraged, and I’ll tell you why. First Obama is on record as being for the repeal of DoMA and the nationwide institution of Civil Unions of some sort for same-sex couples. While that is not exactly what gay people want it does give us a much better outlook then the past administration. Second Obama has time and again stated that he wants to work with people that he may not agree with on all issues. This selection in my opinion is an action that shows that he really is willing to work with people with varying opinions. I personally believe that the ability to engage people of differing ideas and opinions is paramount for a good leader, and a trait that is good for members of a society in general. Yes I will say that I was surprised by the selection, but I am not upset by it.

Till next time,

XR4-IT

            Because of the oppression that American colonists faced before the Revolution our founders embraced certain ideals in establishing a new government that would recognize that all are created equal and that we are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A constitution was adopted to fortify these ideals. Throughout our history laws have been instituted and the Constitution amended to again see that these rights were extended to those who had formerly been denied equal standing under the law.

            While we strive to ensure liberty and justice for all we must recognize that not all Americans are treated equally by the laws of this nation. Homosexuals are treated unfairly under American law in that their relationships are not given full legal status.

            The question of same-sex marriage is a complex one. While homosexuals seek the rights of marriage for a variety of reasons there are many who are opposed to extending marriage rights to their same-sex relationships, and there are others still who for whatever reason don’t feel that they understand the question.

            People who don’t understand the issue may ask, “What’s the big deal? Why do gay people want to get married?” An equally valid question may be, “Why do people want to get married at all?”

People marry because they make vows of love and commitment to one another. They commit all that they have to care for each other and support their partner for better or worse. They then therefore make a legal contract to gain recognition as a family, and legal protection for their partnership.

            Homosexual couples are no different in their ability to give love and commitment to each other. They, however, are denied the ability and the right to form the legal contract of marriage, or have their partnerships formally recognized as a family. Yet same-sex couples would impose on themselves all of the obligations and commitments of marriage. Thus they in their relationships are not given “equal protection of the laws” (US Const. Amendment XIV) as guaranteed in the constitution by the 14^th amendment.

            According to the United States General Accounting Office, as of 2004 there were 1,138 statutory provisions in federal law alone in which marital status is a factor (gao.gov). These laws include joint federal tax filling, access to Social Security benefits, military benefits, and so forth.  Beyond the 1,138 provisions in federal law, states also provide a variety of rights and protections to people who are married. These rights include but are not limited to the right to inherit property, the right to joint adoption, family visitation rights, access to domestic violence intervention, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, and the list continues. Among all these rights is the right to the respect and dignity of the title of marriage.

              Though the federal government recognizes and extends rights to marriages, it does not recognize all of the marriages that are legally performed in the United States. In 1996, foreseeing that a state would one day legalize same-sex marriage Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act is a law that states, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship,” (thomas.loc.gov).

            It also goes on to say, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (thomas.loc.gov).

            This means that even though a state such as Massachusetts or Connecticut performs a same-sex marriage the other states and federal government are not required to recognize the marriage, despite the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Act, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof,” (US Const. Article IV). While Congress is given power to prescribe the effect of such acts, is no effect in any way Full Faith and Credit? Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act isolate same-sex marriages from taking effect in another state, it also blocks the Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships provided by some states from taking effect in other states as well, thus leaving same-sex couples with no rights or protections regarding their relationships.

We live in a democratic society where laws have been made banning same-sex marriage, yet advocates of same-sex marriage have perused many means in attempts to secure the rights to marriage that they seek. At times the legislators have been appealed to, and others have appealed directly to the electorate. Activists have even made their case to the courts, and this has been the most criticized; however, in this nation the Federal Government and the States have instituted constitutions with the purpose of protecting the people from oppressive laws, and judges have been provided to ensure that the laws instituted do not violate these constitutions. To paraphrase Hammurabi’s Code, “To bring about the rule of [law] in the land so … that the strong should not harm the weak,” (wsu.edu) and who are these that are weak? These are they who do not have a voice strong enough to save themselves from the mobocracy that would otherwise prevail. This is why it is right that judges have and do make rulings citing constitutions in the overturning of illegal laws.

            There are many reasons that people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Some may argue that marriage is for the propagation of the species and the homosexual relationships are of themselves sterile. I would first ask; is marriage even required for the propagation of the species? The answer to this question is, no of course not. Humans are perfectly able to reproduce outside of a marriage relationship. Also some married couples choose not to have children, while others still are unable to conceive at all. If marriage was something purely to promote reproduction these unions would not be permitted. In our society marriage is more than a simple path to procreation, but a commitment to a partnership.

            Some who are opposed to same-sex marriage believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition, and should be preserved only between a man and a woman for tradition or history’s sake. The idea that something should remain the same because it is historic or traditional, however, is a false one. Historically our ancestors believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. By tradition kings ruled by divine right, and women were subjugated to men. Likewise, slavery permeated ancient cultures, and social inequalities between races were perpetuated by tradition.

            If we base our laws purely on tradition or history we are simply basing them on things that are very old. Marriage is a tradition, even a good one, but one that has shifted over time. Marriage is no longer the contract between a father and son-in-law for the exchange of a wife, nor is bigamy a celebrated part of society. Within America’s own history where marriage was once restricted from interracial couples, the laws and traditions have shifted to grant marriage rights to couples of any racial combination.

            As it has before, marriage is a tradition that has room to grow. It can and should expand to include same-sex couples who seek to commit to the responsibilities of marriage, and if they take upon themselves all the same responsibilities and commitments they should also be granted all of the same rights.

            Some may be opposed to same-sex marriage for religious reasons and see it as a moral issue, however can we as Americans impose a commandment from one religion or another onto those who don’t fallow that religion? Some religions believe that birth control and contraceptives are immoral, and in some parts of the world the use of birth control either is or has been illegal, but as Americans do we impose those religions commandments against birth control onto people who do not believe that it is immoral? No we let people who want or need to use birth control and contraceptives use them but we also let people who believe that it immoral to abstain from their use.  Furthermore some religions affirm same-sex marriage, and the laws cannot give more or less value to these religions. Being that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (US Const. Amendment I) we cannot use the laws to impose the commandments of anyone’s religion onto the citizens of the United States.         

            Others still believe that marriage purely belongs to religion. Yet while marriage may have a religious component, it has become a civil matter because of the rights and protections granted unto people who are married are granted by civil governments.

            Others fear that allowing same-sex marriage rights in the United States could potentially infringe upon the rights of others in practicing their religion, fearing that churches and religions would be forced by law to condone same-sex marriages and even perform them.

            In the United States our constitution explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The 14^th amendment also says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” These together assure us that no law that will infringe on the rights to freedom of religion can be maintained. An example of this principle can be seen in the way the Catholic Church regards marriage. Catholics do not condone the remarriage of someone who has been divorced, and the Church is not required to perform marriages that they do not condone.

Another concern that people hold in regards to legalizing same-sex marriage is the question on how same-sex relationships will be discussed in schools. Protectmarriage.com a website operated by a coalition dedicated to the prohibition of same-sex marriage said this about education, “it [the prohibition of same-sex marriage]protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage,” and, “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs,” (protectmarriage.com).

The fear is that if same-sex marriage is legalized that homosexuality and same-sex relationships will be discussed as being acceptable, or presented in a positive light; however, legalizing same-sex marriage is not a prerequisite to discussing homosexuality and same-sex relationships in public schools.  Homosexuality or sexuality of any nature is a sensitive subject, and needs to be handled in an age appropriate manner, but we do not need to ban same-sex marriage to do it nor will that solve the issue. We need to work together and take the issue to the school boards and state legislators to see that care is taken in the presentation of this topic and that it is discussed in an age appropriate manner; however, we cannot determine a public schools’ curriculum based on the varying religious beliefs of the students or their families. Nor can families afford to believe that they are the only source of moral thinking in their child’s life. Parents who disagree with what is being taught in schools should take time to talk with their children and explain to them the beliefs and values that are held by them and their family.   Biological evolution as the origin of species is also a subject that offends the religious views of many, yet public schools as a state institution must teach in a manner that is neutral to religion, and sexuality should be approached likewise, leaving parents free to teach their own values and beliefs in the home.

            You may ask, “Why marriage? Why can’t the laws make one institution for gay people and call it something like a ‘Civil Union’ and leave marriage for heterosexual relationships?” The answer is because using laws to implement separate institutions for opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples creates a distinction that can be used to infer that an institution is preferred or is superior to the other, and when the commitments and obligations of a same-sex relationship are the same as those entered into by opposite-sex couples we cannot make such a distinction and maintain “Equal protection of the laws.”  And if they do not receive “equal protection of the laws” as guaranteed by the Constitution, we risk abandoning the ideals that this nation was founded on, and no longer offer the promise of “liberty and justice for all”.

Fall semester recently ended in fact finals were just this past week, and I’ll be posting my final paper on my blog tomorrow. First I want to make a few quick revisions that my professor marked on it before posting int.

For this class we were instructed to pick a debatable topic that we feel passionate about to be the theme of our writing assignments during the semester. With this being the requirement I of course picked same-sex marriage for my subject. I had originally wanted to write on gay rights issues in general, but by the time I got through writing about the marriage subject for each of the papers I had already filled the length requirements.

As a preface to my paper while many of the points in the paper could be applied to the Proposition 8 debate from California that is not the intended subject of the paper. The paper is actually about same-sex marriage on a national level in the United States. In it I outline American ideals and how they should be applied to the same-sex marriage question, and why I believe that allowing same-sex marriage is important.

Because this is an academic paper I would like to receive criticism, and have a respectful, mature, and objective debate or discussion in the comment forum of the article.

See you tomorrow,

XR4-IT