The post below is in response to comments from my brother-in-law, whom disagrees with me on virtually all things political.
Preface.
The Constitution delineates rights guaranteed to us. Amendment 9 of the Constitution mentions other rights retained by the people, but does not specify what they are. It is my firm belief that those who ratified the Bill of Rights knew this Amendment to refer to rights granted to us by God. However, since I don’t know your beliefs, lets rely on the rest of the Constitution for sake of argument. We can save theology for another discussion, but I believe we can all agree that the Ninth Amendment was not alluding to abortion rights or gay marriage.
A Conservative stance on enacting a law.
Conservatives, in general, believe in enacting laws only when necessary. If one person’s action does not infringe on another person’s rights, then there is no need to consider passing a law prohibiting that action. If one person’s action does infringe on another’s person’s rights, then and only then should a law be considered, and only if absolutely necessary to guarantee the second person’s rights.
Abortion.
If abortion was only about a woman’s rights and her body, no true conservative would try to prohibit the practice, no matter how abhorrent the action. However, abortion is not only about a woman’s rights and her body, it is also about the rights of a second person, the unborn child. The action of abortion clearly denies the liberty of the unborn child who is defenseless. Thus, if you believe the unborn child is a person, and you hold to the conservative opinion of laws I articulated above, you must also agree that an acceptable law is one that bans abortion.
There is no constitutional guarantee allowing any person to commit murder. Conversely, the Constitution does protect liberty, which is denied the unborn child by the act of abortion. Thus, the Constitution at its inception did protect the child and any law denying the rights of that child are unconstitutional and should be overturned. Any further law or action prohibiting the rights of the baby are also unconstitutional and should be prohibited. You cannot believe the unborn child is a life and also reason that abortion is a right, as the act of abortion is in conflict to the Constitution by denying another’s liberty.
If you don’t believe the unborn child is a life, then we need to have another debate altogether. There are a number of scientists and doctors who believe the unborn child is alive. There is legal precedent stating that the unborn baby is a life. Example, Scott Peterson was tried and convicted of double homicide, for the murder of his wife and the unborn baby. How can the murder of the baby be homicide if it is not a life? If it is a life, then why is the mother permitted to murder it, but no one else?
Gay Rights / Gay Marriage.
Where in the constitution or elsewhere are rights guaranteed to other people but excluded specifically for homosexuals? I can’t find any such example. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that I do. I might also argue that they have more by way of hate crimes legislation, which punishes crimes against them greater than crimes against me, and thus values their lives and liberty above mine. But that is another argument for another time. The topic at hand is the supposed “trampling” of gay rights... where that supposedly has happened is beyond me.
Homosexuals have the very same rights I do, marriage included. I have the right to marry any adult of the opposite sex (or I did until I got married). So do they. Where is the infringement of their rights? Where are they precluded from rights that other citizens have? I can’t lose a million dollars if I never had it to begin with, and homosexuals can’t lose the right to gay marriage if it never existed before. You cannot trample on rights that do not exist.
People clamoring for gay marriage are looking for special rights to be given to a subset of the population. This is the truest example of a slippery slope. If you are going to make special rights exclusively for homosexuals, where do you draw the line? Can members of NAMBLA marry little boys? Can a cat lover marry her cat, giving spousal rights to Fluffy? No. Are those actions infringing on anyone else’s rights? That’s debatable but not the point. If the law doesn’t exist, it cannot have been denied to them. Homosexuals have not been denied any rights by protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
Would it make some homosexuals happy to marry other homosexuals? Maybe, but is that really the standard we want to give when deciding when a law should be created? It would make my wife and I happy for our anniversary to be a national holiday. Should a law be enacted that does that?
Conclusion.Clearly no rights are "trampled" upon by those who do not support gay marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights that any other person has, arguably they have more, but definitely they have no less. Additionally women have lost no rights when the sanctity of life is protected. The Constitution protects everyone's liberty. Laws and rights should be protected equally. No special exceptions should be made for mothers, homosexuals, or anyone else.
2 comments:
Whether or not the founding fathers wrote God into the Constitution is a huge debate. I happen to believe, based on my interpretation, that they specifically intended religion to be completely separate from every aspect of government. Many of Thomas Jefferson’s writings seem to suggest he was an atheist, or at the very least a deist. Regardless of the beliefs of the founding fathers, my interpretation of the Constitution is that it specifically sets up a wall between religion and government and so I don’t argue its application on religious grounds. This is why I believe the United States has been as prosperous as it has been thus far and why religion (any religion) is its greatest threat. I firmly believe that the most devout of the founding fathers would have argued this point (Jefferson certainly did).
Abortion
The debate is not if fetus is alive, but rather if a fetus is a person protected by the Constitution. As crass as it sounds, I happen to believe a fetus does not fall under the protection of our government because it is completely dependent (under normal circumstances) on the life and actions of the mother and the mother alone. This is not to say that I advocate abortion (I don’t), only that I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not she gives birth. As far as the Scott Peterson case, he also refused a woman’s right to choose. Laci Peterson never had a chance to decide. To deny a woman domain over her body is not only intolerant, but morally offensive.
Gay marriage
On to gay marriage…you’re incorrect when you say “people clamoring for gay marriage are looking for special rights to be given to a subset of the population.” We’re not advocating special rights, only equal rights. Arguing that “if the law doesn’t exist, it cannot have been denied to them” is a very narrow interpretation and completely ignores the spirit of the Constitution. The logic you’re using is very similar to that which was used before the Civil Rights movement to refuse black people the same rights as whites and women the right to vote prior to that. A person does not choose his or her race nor is race a biological reality. Similarly, homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation. If you believe they do, I would ask you when you decided that you preferred females to males. Piles of studies indicate that sexual orientation is overwhelmingly influenced by genetics. So we’re left with the proposition that denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals...the right to marry whom they wish…is a form of prejudice and discrimination.
Additionally, I fail to see what NAMBLA, an organization that explicitly advocates sexual relationships between adults and children, has to do with gay marriage between consenting adults. An adult cannot marry a child regardless of gender and no moral person is suggesting that they have that right. I assume you misspoke when you said it was debatable whether or not anyone’s rights were being infringed upon when an adult takes an underage child as a partner. As for the 9th amendment, I would disagree that it doesn’t apply to gay marriage. As you say, it’s not specific and I would argue we have to assume that “others” means everyone.
My conclusion
To wrap it up, I’m not advocating special rights to gays, only that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. The pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the Constitution. I also advocate a woman’s decision to produce life or not to. To bring this all back to our original debate: conservatives are intolerant, and I would argue discriminatory, when they narrowly interpret a 220-year-old document in order to advance an agenda that is overwhelmingly based on religious views into the law books. I’ll stop there and give you the last word.
I purposefully left religion out of the debate because I knew you would use it as a way to discredit my views in your own mind. Quite contrary to what you say, there is overwhelming evidence that the founding fathers did look towards their religious beliefs when writing the Constitution, and furthermore paid homage to that fact in the Constitution and other writings. Jefferson was a man of religious conviction; of that there should be no doubt. Read a large sampling of his writings and not just those selected by some liberal professor and I believe you will see that.
In order to understand the writings of Jefferson and the other founders, since they are not here to defend themselves, you must look at the totality of their lives and where they came from. We came to this country, in part, to escape religious persecution. That is not to say that those people who came here were void of religion... they just didn’t want to believe and practice the way mother England forced them to. The so-called separation of church and state, which has its basis in a letter from Jefferson and a much later Supreme Court case, not the Constitution, is not meant to deny that rights or this country are founded on Christian principles, but rather that the government should not be in the business of religion, and that one man’s religious practices are between him and God. Jefferson was intelligent. He knew that if the government of the United States declared an official religion or forced laws on its people based on what one believes... that as leaders and the country changed, so could the laws. His and the other founders beliefs could become the minority and thus the government would have precedence to enact laws based on their beliefs and against those of the now minority. The separation between the government and religion is meant to protect people and their religious beliefs... beliefs Jefferson held very dear... and not a way to deny their existence.
You can see the founders desire to protect themselves from a changing government in the Second Amendment. Why would such a great government need to clearly define that its people have the right to maintain arms and a "well regulated militia"? The Second Amendment was there to protect the people from an overbearing government, one that could change through election and time. The founders knew this was a possibility and desired to protect the people from the very beginning in case things changed. That same belief or protecting the people if government changed was responsible for leaving an established religion out of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Great Commission charges Christians to seek out nonbelievers, in the hopes of winning them over the Christ. Any Constitution or law that defined a specific religion and mandated its practices would in effect be contrary to the Great Commission. The “wall” between church and state is not an expression of their atheism but rather another example of their faith. Another reason that a Constitution and government writings filled with Christian overtones establishes no religion.
With that out of the way, how can you declare the actions of NAMBLA immoral and not have a belief in God? Where do your morals come from? And, if you believe that NAMBLA is immoral and thus their happiness should not also be protected, then why can’t I believe that homosexuality is immoral? Why am I intolerant and you are not? What gives you the right to decide the quality of my morals? What gives the government that right? Passing laws specifically for a subset of the population does just that, and is inherently wrong and anti-conservative.
Do I believe NAMBLA is wrong? Of course I do. Clearly. But it is a very relevant point. Many people also believe homosexuality is wrong. You cannot dismiss one thing because you think it is immoral yet when I do the same call me a bigot.
Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic, or that it is a choice. But even if it were, that has nothing to do with marriage. Some people are genetically predisposed to act violent (schizophrenia, etc) yet their actions are not permitted in order to make them happy. I do not suggest that homosexuality is the same as psychological disease... I only suggest that to point out the fallacy of your argument.
Even if homosexuality were genetic, there is nothing afforded to those genetics about marriage. Marriage as prescribed by many state and federal laws has always been between a man and a woman. And a homosexual has the same rights regarding marriage that I do. No more, no less.
Comparing my beliefs about this to racism is offensive and degrading. They are nothing of the same, and I expect better from you Will. There is no action in being black. A man born black, is black. If you are born gay, then there is no action in being born gay either. But what does that have to do with marriage? I am not saying a person can’t be a homosexual under the law, I am saying they cannot get married under the law. Why do you fail to understand that? Why do you insist on taking the leap from one to the other and implying that I am a bigot?
There are many homosexuals who also believe that marriage should be between only a man and a woman. Does that mean they are bigots too?
You are advocating special rights to gays. Period. And I am asking to what end? If we apply “because it makes me happy” to the reason that a law should exist, where does it end? If it makes me happy to kill someone, should that happiness be weighed against the life I took? If somehow a jury decided my happiness was greater than the value of the life, should I be exonerated? The idea that if something feels good it is ok has led civilization down an evil and difficult path. Feeling good is not the same as being good. The principle you originally laid out (and seem to have wavered from)was not that the government should pass laws that make people feel good, it was that the government should stay out of people’s lives. I agree. The last thing the government should be doing is enacting laws that make people feel good. We can leave that to Doctor Phil.
Additionally, I am not denying any woman “the decision to produce life or not” as you put it. Excluding rape, every woman has the ability to decide whether or not to produce life. The decision is made when the woman chooses to engage in sex. Again, something that feels good has consequences. Imagine that. If she chooses not to produce life, then she should take precautions... the only sure way of doing so is abstaining from sex. Failing that, she has to live with the consequences. It is a great message for life in general. Every action we take has consequences. Some intended, many not. Murder is not the answer to deal with you unintended consequences.
Post a Comment