How in the world did an Obama victory not squash Proposition 8 in California? Well, maybe the country where we're required to accept whoever got the most votes as our President is the same one that requires that we accept a change to California's Constitution.
The notion of gay marriage as a 'civil right' just doesn't hold water. A marriage license is like a drivers license, you don't automatically get one just because you're a citizen.
Driving is a privilege afforded to you if you jump through the right hoops to qualify. The state has the right to keep public highways and streets safe for the general populace, hence not issueing licenses to people that can't pass the test, or not qualified due to age or physical condition. You can't have kindergartners and blind people driving. Its just 'common' sense.
Likewise, a marriage license is issued to those that meet the qualifications. Age, for one. Can't have a middle age guy marrying a 10 year-old or Sam Aardvark marrying his sister, now can we? Its not open to everyone as a civil right. Its open to those who qualify for it as a privilege.
Now, some would argue that since marriage as a spiritual union originated from some religious beliefs before governments existed, it shouldn't be licensed by the state with its unique legal status. Everyone should have access to a state authorized civil union, but marriage should restricted to whatever religious entity associated with it. If we take that line of reasoning, then anything else originating in the form of a moral/religious stricture that has since been adopted by the state shouldn't have the force of law either. Should exclude laws against murder or theft in our justice system simply because it was originally part of a religiously based set of rules? Should this 'separation of church and state' idea be taken to this logical end? Of course not.
No matter the origin, laws against murder and robbery are good laws to have. Keeps society safe. Just as the state has recognized the necessity and efficacy of having a society that doesn't murder or steal, so it recognizes the benefits to society concerning marriage that legally married couples and their children in a nuclear family provides. The benefit to society is unique. Therefore, the state provides the legal framework for that uniquely beneficial structure to exist and thrive. Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing for our society. Why then, mess it up by turning it into something else?
Even with all that, we still have people protesting Prop 8. Its all about an wanting an equal level of acceptance by way of marriage, isn't it? In effect, they're wanting the same consideration for what their relationship brings to society as the traditional man/woman/progeny relationship does. The state, and the people voting in it, have the right to refuse granting that privilege.
No comments:
Post a Comment