Homosexual Marriage – The Constitution (Part 3)
There is, obviously, a lot of dissent when it comes to legalizing or not legalizing homosexual marriage. Many people seem to miss the point of the arguments, and continue to focus on marriage simply being a right, without looking any further than that. If you support homosexual marriage, do you agree with the following:
An individual in America does not have the freedom to choose not to participate in a ceremony he or she finds morally abhorrent.
Parents in America do not have the right to choose when and how to teach their children about sexuality.
Religious agencies in America do not have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs when performing charity and service.
Citizens in America do not have a right to physical privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms.
Any consenting adults have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, including polygamous and incestuous groups. (Supreme court precedent in Romer v Evans)
If you disagree with any of these statements, you should think carefully about what your support for homosexual marriage indicates. These are actual occurrences, not speculation. No one is telling homosexual couples that they can not build a life and family together. They can legally set up many of the same benefits granted to heterosexual married couples. There are no laws infringing on their right to choose who to be with, how to spend their time, how to live. There are some benefits reserved for married couples that they may not receive, and some that may be more complicated to obtain. I think that some freedoms, like an individual right to physical privacy and freedom to practice religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) trump a couple’s desire to receive marriage benefits.
There will continue to be people who think their individual civil right to marry trumps other’s constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. My perspective is irrelevant to any religious beliefs I may or may not have. The examples I use typically deal with Christians, because that isthe predominant religion people affiliate themselves with in America and thus that is where the most examples of religious rights being infringed will be found. That said, my perspective comes from my respect for constitutional rights. If there is a law in place that limits an individual’s right to practice their religion as they see fit, it is unconstitutional. If a woman does not want to photograph a wedding for a lesbian couple based on her religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional to force her to. If this seems trite to you, that is your opinion. The rights granted to the GLTB movement have demonstrably proven to infringe on Constitutional guarantees. I believe that the Constitution needs to be protected in all forms in order to keep this nation free. If the government can come into a religious institution and dictate their practices, that is an unconstitutional infringement on the free practice of religion. If one portion of the Constitution can be disregarded in the name of civil justice and equality, then so can others. If one constitutional freedom can be found negligible, then what protections do our other freedoms have? Whether or not you have strong religious beliefs should be irrelevant; the important question is whether or not you believe that the Constitution should be protected. If some couples loose what they perceive to be their civil rights in order to protect the Constitution, that is the side I will err on.
Posted on June 21, 2011, in Homosexual Marriage and tagged constitution, constitutional rights, discrimination, equality, gay marriage, gay rights, homosexual marriage, homosexual rights, marriage discrimination, marriage equality, same sex marriage, ssm, why I'm Conservative. Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.