I have been delinquent in coming up with a completed work lately. Not that there is a lack of suitable material, because there is a ton of it, but mostly due to arguing myself out of the position I started with. I hate that. I’ll have a position on a topic and get about two-thirds of the way through an article and the next thing I know is that I have discovered a piece (or pieces) of information that makes me re-think my entire view and typically results in a reversal of the position I started with. It almost drives me crazy. Anyway I have been helped along my path this month be recent events in the news and some of the reactions to that news. Here goes.
In just a few days we will celebrate the 227th anniversary of our Independence where our founding fathers clearly stated that we, the people (soon to be of the United States of America), had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That phrase has meant a lot of things to a lot of people and, in my mind, was further amplified with the recent decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional (
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html). The impetus of that decision was that the law was restrictive to the liberty of consenting adults within the privacy of their home.
Now, because of that decision, some feel that this has opened the way for same sex marriages. Reactionary responses to the decision have grown to where there is a push in Congress to amend the Constitution to declare that only marriages between a man and woman would be recognized in the United States. Any such amendment, I feel, would be an overstepping of the authority of the Federal government into the rights previously held by the states and protected by the 10th Amendment.
Our states have routinely and regularly determined what is and is not a marriage and I feel that the states should retain such authority. In Maryland the law states that the only valid marriage is one between a man and a woman. I fully agree that our state has the right to make that determination, but I feel that the state or, maybe more appropriately, the Federal government must realize that there are other forms of relationships that exist beyond what is considered the norm.
Personally, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to live as they choose (no matter how incomprehensible that lifestyle is to many of us) without fear or loss of rights within our country. Our laws are such that persons choosing to live together outside of marriage aren’t always afforded the same access to insurance, the benefit of filing taxes together, even accompanying the significant other in areas of hospitals where married persons are regularly allowed to comfort and attend to their “spouse”, and many other areas of our everyday life have been or are denied to them.
While we may not agree or accept the lifestyle these people have chosen we most certainly should tolerate their right to live as they choose. Please understand that my views on this are strictly concerning behavior of consenting adults and in no way should it be taken to include activities with minor children or forced activities, which are crimes. It seems to me that by blocking the ability of same-sex partners to establish a “civil union” is a direct violation of the protection afforded by our Constitution as it relates to equal protections under the law (14th Amendment).
As I see it there is an easy way to “fix” this problem. That being that the Federal government should allow and sanction “civil unions” between same-sex partners that carries equal benefit as to what is afforded to opposite-sex couples that marry. These “civil unions” could be looked upon as many states now view their common law marriages. Additionally, this application could extend to cover other couples (besides same-sex) that choose not to enter into wedlock but chose to simply live together. They should be allowed to enter into a “civil union” recognized at the Federal level and honored by the states. People that live together, versus being married, should not be subjected to differing standards of laws (and taxes) as those that chose to marry.
I’m sure that many of you will disagree with this view of mine, which is fine. I seem to have a knack for taking a position against the masses when I think a fundamental wrong is being done. All I ask is that you help me understand why it is that only those that chose to enter into wedlock should be able to provide health coverage for their entire family (meaning either same-sex partner or their significant other that they are living with), that only those that are married can make a decision for an incapacitated spouse/significant other, and that only those that are married can claim one another on their taxes and file jointly. It seems absurd to prevent or block a couple from many of these “rights” when so many are living as if married, just without a piece of paper from a state that says they are.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Digg this Thread!
Add Thread to del.icio.us
Bookmark in Technorati
Furl this Thread!
Add Thread to Facebook