Political Awakening

I don't know what has taken so long. I am over forty after all. But I have noticed recently, say over the past couple of years, that more and more many government policies and actions, and Politician's just, pardon the expression, piss me off.

One example of public policy that has me gritting my teeth lately is this whole Gay marriage debate. Now, this has nothing to do with me personally. I don't plan on divorcing Karen and marrying a man. But why should anyone but me have the right to make that decision?

I don't understand the distinction between gay and heterosexual marriage. Forget the sexual aspects, that is none of anyone's business, regardless. Marriage, has two purposes. The first and probably most relevant is it is a commitment between two individuals to 'love, honor, and cherish'. Secondly it is a contractual agreement between individuals that can be recognized by others, including governments, that entitles the parties in marriage to act on the behalf of and be responsible for the well being of each other. Others will include the religious aspect of marriage but that is a personal decision and should not be dictated by law.

I guess this issue bothers me because most arguments against gay marriage, as well as most other hot button issues, invoke religious morals as the primary supporting argument; opponents quote the bible and carry on. I know that ALL laws are based on some sort of moral value, by definition. Morals being the distiction between right and wrong. This is the rub. What says my morals are any more or less correct than yours? Are you morals better because it is based on the word of God. In the end it may buy you a seat in heaven but until then the argument to me is unsubstantiated.

So if our laws cannot be religiously based, what should we use as a yardstick? Where do we draw the line?

I am not a student of law or the constitution. I do believe the founders of the constitution were all "God fearing" men and based much of the constitution on their morals, as, if not defined by, at least influenced by, their religion. But it is my general interpretation of the constitution, and the bill of rights, that the laws should be drafted, foremost, to protect individual liberties; to prevent infringements upon those liberties. That is a huge generalization of course. There are other aspects of government that must be taken into consideration; Taxes and infastructure and National security and the general health and well being of ALL US and indeed world citizens....

Based on that general interpretation of our constitution, How does marriage to anyone, gay or heterosexual, infringe on the liberty of others. Certainly not everyone has to like it or agree with the lifestyle but that should not make it illegal should it?

Now I think I am about to contradict myself a little here but so be it. I believe lawmakers should ask themselves a set of questions before passing any legislation:

• Is the law supported directly, not indirectly, by The Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights?
  
• Is the law/policy in the best interest of ALL citizens? (e.g. national security)
• If the law/policy reduces personal liberty is it adequately justified by the interest of all citizens?
• Does the law/policy dictate personal behavior that is the generally acceptable behavior of (in this order) the community, nation and world. (State vs. Federal laws)
  

There are two sticky points to the above guidelines, the definition of personal liberty, and the definition of acceptable behavior. I could go on for pages trying to support a specific definitions of personal liberty and I probably would still not get it right so I will leave that to the constitutionalist.

The "acceptable behavior" guideline is where I may have contradicted myself slightly. Generally acceptable behavior can be defined as behavior acceptable to the majority of all those who would be affected by a behavior. Since we live in a democracy, the definition of "generally acceptable behavior" is defined by those we elect and place in office to define the laws. If the elected officials truly vote the conscience of those who elected them then the laws that are drafted will, in theory anyway, enforce the generally accepted behavior of these same constituents. Me, I won't vote for a man or woman who bases public policy, domestic or international primarily on biblical or other religious beliefs. BUT if the majority of ALL people feel strongly enough about this or any other issue, over time, laws will be put into place to reflect the generally acceptable policy. Then it would be up to the judicial branch to enforce or overturn these policies. Hopefully enough folks will see this type of legislation for what it is, at best, a deviation from "equal protection", and stop this nonsence.

Forcing religious beliefs on other, to me is not acceptable behavior and I will not use my vote to support that behavior.