| I've long been bothered by the argument put forth by many that oppose equal marriage for gays and lesbians, that such marriages would construe "special rights" to groups that, one assumes, doesn't deserve them.
I've been bothered that these priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, and others, can argue that homosexuality is a "choice," and as such, not worthy of the same protections afforded to gender and race.
And religion.
Yes, and religion.
To these people of faith, religion is not a "choice," but a calling from God or some other ethereal being. The actual definition of it - faith, a belief that is not based on proof - doesn't work its way into their deliberations about what others might think - because they have "faith" that they are absolutely correct.
Our own Constitution protects these folks whose belief is not based on proof; Amendment I reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'll guess that none of us have an argument against this - a person ought to be allowed to practice their faith as they personal deem necessary without fear of outside intervention or persecution.
But with this personal protection comes a societal one: that no faith, no matter how many Americans profess to follow it, will NOT be used to coerce or intimidate others.
Religionists are at a crossroads, as either they claim that their own faith is not one of choice or some inexplicable desire within themselves or is a choice. The will of God has moved them, and the rest of us are not to question that. And yet they seem comfortable asserting that homosexuality is a behavior of choice, not one imbued in a person's very being.
Marc Mutty, Executive Chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the main group behind the people's veto, has this opinion piece in today's SunJournal. In it, he writes:
The fact is, however, no one has any "right" to marry. Repeatedly asserting there is does not create one. Societies have always regulated who could marry. Brothers and sisters cannot legally marry, for example, nor can anyone marry someone underage or marry multiple people.
The courts have indeed recognized that there are rights that are protected, even if they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. But the reason is that these important rights are rooted in the history and tradition of our nation; it would be unthinkable not to protect them.
Of course, there were no legal objections to inter-familial marriages when our nation was founded, and men take multiple wives in some parts of our nation to this day. The legal age for getting married has been increasing over the years, but LD 1020 doesn't change existing law - that a 16 year old Mainer can get married with parental consent.
One wonders how Mr. Mutty would bristle if the State of Maine passed a law that said his church could no longer exclude divorcees from those that they will marry. Or if the State passed a law that said that synagogues could no longer refuse to marry a Jew to a Gentile.
Mutty and others would be outraged, and well they should - how dare the State intrude on their protected rights.
And how narrow their view that they can't see that their own chosen faith infringes upon the rights of others. |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an