MisterE’s whereIstand Blog

Yesterday, as you all know, the California state supreme court ended a ban on gay marriage. Massachusetts is currently the only other state the allows gay marriage. Those of you who know me know that I’m smart enough to know that restricting people’s freedoms based upon the way they were born is counter progress and socially unjust.

There is a lot of other social injustice in America, and there always has been. The top 1% of America’s upper class has always had a huge advantage. They are able to keep themselves at the top and widen the gap between them and everyone else with republicans like Bush in power. This has always been and may always be. Money runs this country, but money isn’t a method of control. To control people, we often use moral crusading and religion. Followers, like sheep, allow themselves to be convinced by orators who tout morality as if it were something written in a book. Smarter people know that morality comes from within and that uncritical faith-based religions like Christianity are methods of control. Abortion lies within this web. Some conservatives know that their wish to restrict the freedom of women in America is based upon uncritical faith, or religion, rather than logic or facts. Thats why they try to paint a startling picture of pro-choicers and liberals using abortions as a method of birth control, as if it were nothing. But you’d have to be real dumb to really believe that people enjoy having abortions. The truth is, and listen carefully, that liberals hate abortions as much as conservatives. Nobody wants to have to have an abortion. But liberals have the enlightened sense to know that to make that choice for others is immoral.

So what about gays? I’ve written extensively on this, and I believe it to be the great civil rights movement of the 21st century. Once, not too long ago, the American government banned inter-racial marriage. The ban was dropped because wiser individuals understood that this was unconstitutional. And so is a ban on gay marriage.

A blogger, or writer, or whatever you want to call him had an interesting objection to the supreme court decision yesterday:

[W]e live in a representative republic, where the will of the people, as voiced through their elected representatives, is the law of the land. The responsibility of a non-elected judiciary is not to make law, that is the job of the legislative branch. In my opinion, the California Court has clearly overstepped it’s bounds here. Now 4 Supreme Court justices make a ruling which overturns the expressed wishes of a state of over 36 million people.

I believe that argument to be valid. In this instance, a majority of people voted for X but a ruling government body vetoed its purpose.

However, the reason why I believe the California ruling to be okay in this instance is because it involves equal rights for all, not a school budget or a bill on gambling. There are very likely scenarios where a majority vote of a state would once again ban interracial marriages. Does that make it okay? The majority of a state may be white conservatives, but maybe it isn’t appropriate to support some of their racist or bigoted views towards a minority community because its unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It is the supreme court’s job to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights. In this country, you are not supposed to create a second class citizenry. It is irresponsible and morally corrupt. The supreme court was protecting its citizens, and that is what they must be allowed to do. It is not right to force your morals unto others, to tell them what they can and can’t do with regards to their pursuit of happiness. There is not constitutional grounds to deny happiness to a certain minority of people based on the way they were born. Its unpatriotic.

I know that some of you believe that allowing gay marriage IS forcing morals unto others. However, this cannot be the case. Giving people freedom and choices is not forcing morals, its simply opening up interpretations. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, if you don’t want to have a gay marriage, don’t have one. Forcing morals would be if the supreme court banned marriages between men and women. This is not what they did. What they did was allow others to pursue happiness and not have their pursuit be interfered with by the government.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• Should the government regulate marriage?
• Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?
• Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
• Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?
• What legal rights to a relationship of consenting adults should be available for same-sex couples?

This entry was posted on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.