Monday, April 19, 2010

Blog Stage Six

Response to "Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau" by Danielle Zamora


When viewing the world of politics and law, it is imperative for an individual to leave their own personal convictions and values at the door. The individual must base their choices solely on an interpretation based on how the laws are written, the constitution that this nation is founded upon and remember to always place the greater good of the nation and others above what your own values and beliefs may be telling you to do.

I recently read the blog commentary written by Danielle Zamora titled “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau” and I feel that she has failed to keep this in mind. The final outcome of her article is against the legalization of same sex marriage. I agree with that final outcome but I believe that the logic that led her to that conclusion is flawed and my view on why the definition should be untouched at this time comes from a different prospective.


The majority of the article uses religion as a basis of decision for argument against same sex marriage. Her commentary even states that we are a Christian nation. The United States was founded as being ambiguous towards religion. We do not have a state religion and have purposely separated state from religion and cannot let religion define our interpretation and creation of law.


The author is correct in that the definition of marriage as being between a “man and woman” was defined as coming from religious interpretation. If we open up marriage to interpretation and change where is the end point or stoppage to change. If we open up and allow same sex marriages then we should open up to the idea of polygamy. If marriage is no longer between man and woman who is to say that a man cannot claim that he is now married to his goat or an inanimate object? Doesn’t that individual have as much as a right as the same sex couple that want to change the definition of marriage to what they deem fit as being proper or what a valid marriage is in todays world?


If claiming that holding onto the definition of marriage as being between man and woman is discrimination and imposes upon the freedom and rights of others then I ask who is to set the boundary or deny the rights of all other groups other then just same sex couples?


If you are to base your decision solely on religion then you have now crossed the line of separating religion from state and are allowing religion to dictate policies. You are basing an interpretation on a personal belief. You also crossed the line of denying the rights of and infringing upon the rights of other citizens of this nation.


I believe strongly that there is no problem unless there is a solution. The solution to this issue? I believe that the governments involvement in using marriage as a defining characteristic of an individual should be removed. Being defined or given different treatment based on your marriage status creates a society of division and inequality. Citizens are taxed differently, given different rights and treated differently based on this one characteristic.


Since marriage is a definition and institution created by religion it should stay within the confines of religion itself and out of national state matters and policies. If same sex couples or other citizens of this nation want recognition of their unions as official marriages then it is up to the religion they follow who defined marriage to discuss the topic of same sex marriages and whether or not they are authorized or deemed “moral” in their eyes. Yes it would require reworking of current laws but the establishment of an unbiased nation of equality would be worth the time and effort.


Through this choice everyone is equal and the same in the eyes of the law. There is no discrimination, nobody is forced to abide by a law they do not believe in or was written based on a personal biased view of the world. It is up to the individuals religion to decide the moral and ethnical implications of their lifestyle choices and whether or not to recognize those individuals choices.

No comments:

Post a Comment