Government should not define marriage
Thursday, Sep 1 2011, 5:51 pm
North Carolina Republicans are on the verge of setting off one of the greatest social debates in the state’s history.
On Tuesday, House GOP leaders said they will seek a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. They hope an amendment will work its way through the General Assembly next month and go before voters across the state on Election Day in November 2012.
Same-sex marriage already is against the law in North Carolina, but including a ban in the state’s constitution would raise it to the highest level of governance. Interestingly, lawmakers in Raleigh have been unwilling to give voters the opportunity to grant the same level of importance to private property rights and the public’s right to know, both of which would diminish government’s power over individuals.
The GOP announcement touched off a predictable round of rhetoric about the subject of same-sex marriage.
House Speaker Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, framed it as benevolent legislators giving power to the people when he said the decision about defining marriage should rest with voters, not lawmakers.
Rep. Joe Hackney, D-Orange, said the debate on the proposed amendment is a waste of time given that there’s already a law and that opposition to same-sex marriage “has become a form of hate speech.”
As with all things in Raleigh, it’s difficult to ignore the politics behind the timing. Emotions and moral convictions run high on the definition of marriage and will likely bring a big turnout at the polls from those opposed to same-sex marriage.
Rep. Mark Hilton, R-Catawba, said as much recently when he told the GOP caucus that a ban on same-sex marriage would help conservative groups “get their ground game working.”
Democrats, of course, are no different when it comes to finding hot buttons to impact voter turnout in their favor. Like the rhetoric, it’s politics as usual.
Even if the measure makes it to the November 2012 ballot and however it sits with voters, the issue is sure to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on the basis of equal protection. The ban, the judge wrote, discriminates against same-sex couples and gives preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples.
The problem with a ban on same-sex marriage is that government is involved in marriage at all. Why should a commitment between two people require a government license? In effect, the license is the government giving persons permission to marry.
Eliminating any government definition of marriage would not require those with a moral objection to same-sex marriage to recognize or approve of it. Companies would not be forced to provide benefits to same-sex couples but could decide what is in the company’s best interest. Most importantly, marriage rights for all couples would be better protected if the rights of some individuals are not expressly forbidden.
Rather than infringing on the rights of some, government should remove itself from defining marriage and recognize personal commitments as a contract between two people. Leave “marriage” to be defined by individuals and their houses of worship based on moral beliefs.
On Tuesday, House GOP leaders said they will seek a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. They hope an amendment will work its way through the General Assembly next month and go before voters across the state on Election Day in November 2012.
Same-sex marriage already is against the law in North Carolina, but including a ban in the state’s constitution would raise it to the highest level of governance. Interestingly, lawmakers in Raleigh have been unwilling to give voters the opportunity to grant the same level of importance to private property rights and the public’s right to know, both of which would diminish government’s power over individuals.
The GOP announcement touched off a predictable round of rhetoric about the subject of same-sex marriage.
House Speaker Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, framed it as benevolent legislators giving power to the people when he said the decision about defining marriage should rest with voters, not lawmakers.
Rep. Joe Hackney, D-Orange, said the debate on the proposed amendment is a waste of time given that there’s already a law and that opposition to same-sex marriage “has become a form of hate speech.”
As with all things in Raleigh, it’s difficult to ignore the politics behind the timing. Emotions and moral convictions run high on the definition of marriage and will likely bring a big turnout at the polls from those opposed to same-sex marriage.
Rep. Mark Hilton, R-Catawba, said as much recently when he told the GOP caucus that a ban on same-sex marriage would help conservative groups “get their ground game working.”
Democrats, of course, are no different when it comes to finding hot buttons to impact voter turnout in their favor. Like the rhetoric, it’s politics as usual.
Even if the measure makes it to the November 2012 ballot and however it sits with voters, the issue is sure to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on the basis of equal protection. The ban, the judge wrote, discriminates against same-sex couples and gives preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples.
The problem with a ban on same-sex marriage is that government is involved in marriage at all. Why should a commitment between two people require a government license? In effect, the license is the government giving persons permission to marry.
Eliminating any government definition of marriage would not require those with a moral objection to same-sex marriage to recognize or approve of it. Companies would not be forced to provide benefits to same-sex couples but could decide what is in the company’s best interest. Most importantly, marriage rights for all couples would be better protected if the rights of some individuals are not expressly forbidden.
Rather than infringing on the rights of some, government should remove itself from defining marriage and recognize personal commitments as a contract between two people. Leave “marriage” to be defined by individuals and their houses of worship based on moral beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment