Friday, February 20, 2004

Gay Marriages and the Constitution

By trying to define marriage as only a union between a man and a woman, confusion between a rights issue is made with some modern persons understanding of ancient religious texts. Those religions do not address transgender or full sex change. They certainly do not address hermaphrodites. Let’s remember, not everyone is born with an identifiable sex. Some people born this way have their sex chosen for them by their parents and doctor at infancy, though their bodies do not always agree with the choice as they grow up. (What about cases where the wrong sex is chosen for them?) Others are left to grow up with organs of both sexes. Will these persons be allowed to marriage as nature intended, or forced to live a life nature did not intend? The question is really this: Are we asking the Constitution to define what it is to be a man or a woman? We’d have to define the sexes in order to ask the Constitution to limit the definition of marriage. But, really, you can’t ask the Constitution to define sex because nature herself isn’t all that clear about it all the time. By trying to limit the definition of marriage, you are creating a second-class citizen, not only of homosexuals, but also of people not born with our ideal form of man or woman.

For the rights of all to be protected and equal, we must either defend gay marriage –or- eliminate all the benefits afforded to all married couples. Otherwise, we risk becoming a society that puts ideology above natural reality. That didn’t suit the German’s to well in the years leading up to War World II, and it doesn’t fit well within our own system based on freedom and equality.

I realize the issue of gay marriages goes well beyond the argument here, but this argument is enough reason to stop the madness of trying to dictate limitations on the basis of sexual orientation.

No comments: