As I am fond of boasting, I am an eighth generation North Carolinian Son of the American Revolution. Except for a brief period in the 70's I have lived in North Carolina my entire life and plan to continue to do so until my death, when I hope someone shall erect a marker in my memory in the old Stoner Cemetery in southern Alamance County, just east of 'downtown' Bellemont.
I shan't try to enumerate all of the 'things' of which I'm proud about this state. There are just too many. But there are instances and personalities that and who have shamed me as a North Carolinian, like so many, too many of our politicians like Easley, Nifong, Perdue, Edwards, Black, and even Helms. At least in Jesse Helms' case, the embarrassment was caused by political incorrectness and public insensitivity, rather than criminality, as is the case with the others. The others, of course, are a bunch of Demoncats and Dummycraps, whereas Sen. Helms was just a loud mouthed Repulsican. And truth be told, I was never really ashamed of or embarrassed by Sen.Helms. Guess I just caught myself almost being politically correct. Now, that's shameful, for someone who has always held that the primary plank of any political/philosophical platform has to be: NO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!
Presently, I suspect that my fellow North Carolinians are going to embarrass me again, like never before. On May 8th, as part of the primary elections, there will be a proposed state constitutional amendment for the voters to consider. It reads: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party, nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
Marriage is but a contract. It is an agreement between consensual parties to form a partnership of domesticity, designed to enhance those parties' pursuit of happiness, one of the "self evident..inalienable rights" proclaimed in the state constitution's article one, section one. Marriage is but an arrangement that is as old as the history of mankind. Historically and traditionally, much of the marriage concept was to declare a man's dominion over and practical ownership of a woman, and that woman's subjugation to that man. Thus, the woman's vow to "love, honor and obey". Thankfully, that last verb has been largely stricken from most contemporary marriage vows, as marriage is supposed to be an agreement between equals.
This entire amendment madness is nothing more than newly elected Repulsican politicians kowtowing to the religious fundamentalists of the state, allowing them to force their doctrinal dogma on the entire population of the state. Morality can't be legislated and it is a prime function of government in a free society to protect the individual rights of members of minorities against the tyranny of the masses. While homosexuality may be abhorrent, disgusting and vile to many, if not most, it is not a crime, in that it causes no demonstrable loss or harm through force or fraud.
Many, if not most of my conservative contemporaries are dead set against any governmental action or inaction that might be construed as support for homosexuality. Many of these people doth protest too much, I think. MLK's niece, Alveda King, of whom I am a fan, equates gay marriage with genocide. Jason Lewis proclaims that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their cats. My libertarian hero, Neal Boortz says that homosexuals presently enjoy the same right to marry as heterosexuals. Gay marriage could, I suppose, lead to humanity's genocide, if everyone practiced homosexuality, thus preventing the procreation of the species. Nothing can ever lead to marrying cats, or any other animal, as animals don't have the reason and rationality to enter into contracts. And while it is true, as Boortz points out, that homosexuals have the same ability as heterosexuals to marry a person of the other gender, the difference is that they, the homosexuals don't have the ability to marry one of the gender they prefer as a sexual partner.
It all comes down to sex, sex, sex, sex, sex. There is always going to be a per centage of any population, generally a small per centage, wherein the men would rather put their penises into another man's rectum than in a woman's vagina, and the women would rather perform cunnilingus than fellatio. As abhorrent and abnormal as the majority may find these practices, it's none of our damned business, as public policy, as long as they don't do it in the public square, so to speak, or use force or fraud to achieve those wants and wishes. For all of the rhymes and reasons to support or oppose this amendment, the most basic tenet to be considered is that we all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law to do any and every 'thing' we wish, so long as that 'thing' does not cause demonstrable loss or harm to another through force or fraud. I don't see homosexual marriage, or bigamous or polygamous marriage between consenting parties causing me, or anybody else demonstrable loss or harm. As marriage is nothing more than a state/societal sanctioned religious rite, and as some established religions are okay with homosexual marriage, this amendment could be interpreted as religious repression, which is, of course, prohibited by the federal constitution's first amendment and NC's constitution's article one, section thirteen.
In the final analysis, let the homo's enjoy the same right to marry whom they choose, as the hetero's do. Constitutional amendments are largely a messy and unnecessary practice, especially in a state which has the history of rewriting its constitution every hundred years or so, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment