Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
This might not surprise you at all. I, for all intent and purpose am a social conservative. I would not want to call marriage between 2 people of the same gender. After making that statement, it might surprise you that I voted against the proposition that makes an amendment to the Arizona state constitution that would say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Though I agree that marriage is between people of opposite gender, that is how I recognise it personally, I disagree with the concept of using the Constitution to deny, or restrict the rights of a single individual or a group of individuals to do something that all others can do without those same denials or restrictions. I don't think it is right to impose my views through codified law on another, even if I am offended personally by the act. I have always thought that a constitution in America would be founded on the principle of equal and equatable rights and freedoms for all. To use the constitution to deny or restrict rights of certain individuals or groups seems to take away the notion that we are a nation of law, and not of men, since men, through codification can make illegal what men are offended by. Or perhaps it suggests that we are a nation of certain men who use the law to lord over others not like them.
The vote in California on a similar issue was striking. As it turned out, and both Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh pointed this out, black people in California (at least 75% I think) voted to deny gay people the right. On such a historic night on which the first black American was elected President of the United States, that was an embarrassment and a stain on the record of a people who themselves were once denied civil rights in this country.
It would seem that all is fair then. But who do gay people get to pick on? Illegal immigrants?
Report Abuse