Considering the last two posts to my blog, some may find it odd that I did in fact vote for Amendment One. It was not something that I was particularly passionate about, but, granting the system we live in and that I already had a ballot in hand because I was voting for Ron Paul, I found myself in general agreement with the amendment and bubbled in “FOR.” There are plenty of things that I do not like about the present system regarding marriage (and a thousand other matters), however, it is the system in which we live, and, as a citizen within that system, I will support legislation based upon natural morality when I can.
On the other side, opponents of the amendment have and still are railing against the will of the majority to “suppress the rights” of the minority. Their chief tenet is that all unions, be it between a man and woman, a man and man, a man and three women, a mother and son, a sister and brother, a goat owner and goat, etc. should receive equal benefits under the law.
Well, maybe not.
I doubt that even the anti-amendment community in all of their “tolerant” glory would support the legalization of marriage within immediate families, polygamy, or bestiality. Or maybe they would. But assuming that they would not, would they not be the new bigots against the Oedipuses and the goat-lovers of the country? What would give them the right to withhold marriage benefits from the sister-wife / brother-husband community or from unions between adults and consenting children? Even those who support legal unions between homosexuals would draw a line somewhere beyond themselves, effectively stripping the “rights” of those who do not fit into the comforts of their hetero/homo marriage model.
And while everyone is talking about rights, who gives anyone the right to do anything? The problem when anyone starts claiming that he or she has a right to something, whatever it is, he (whether he knows it or not) is appealing to some source or Being that is greater than him who has given him those rights. Thomas Jefferson knew this, for, though he was not a Christian, he wrote that we as humans are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Rights are endowed, given, granted, bestowed, etc. Therefore, to claim a right, one must be given that right.
As far as the homosexual marriage debate is concerned, I scarcely doubt that any against the amendment would look to God for those rights, for most do not believe in a specially revealed God, and, if they do, they would be hard-pressed to find religious writings that do anything but condemn homosexuality. Perhaps they could appeal to Nature, but, then again, Nature also preaches against homosexuality.*
What about government? Government could indeed confer rights upon individuals, and even (against God and against Nature) grant the benefits of marriage to homosexual unions.
But in the state of North Carolina, government did not.
The homosexual community has appealed to the state for rights, but those rights were not granted to them. Therefore, no one has taken rights from anyone. The rights of marriage were not their rights to begin with, so maybe we could all drop the references to “rights”? Probably not.
Personally, I wish that marriage did not have secular benefits or consequences. I wish that marriage was strictly a religious institution and the state had little or nothing to do with it. If these things were so, this would never be debate. Yet, these things are so and are likely never to change. And as long as these things are so, I will never lose a night’s sleep over a group of people not having rights that neither God nor Nature has granted to them.
* Imagine if everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would be extinct in one generation. Also, the equipment it incompatible. Have you ever tried to plug a 3.5 mm female cord into the female headphone jack on iPod? Spoiler alert: you won’t hear your music.