Quiet Riot

I had my friend Jigsha look over this, my opus on the protests against and push for gay marriage in the United States. I have heard nothing from any of the newspapers I submitted it to, so this will be my medium.


I call this Quiet Riot because Jigsha's critique, aside from a few corrections, was that I was making this argument, but doing so without being harsh or offensive. I like to think this is my personality.


At the end of my piece I have included the the links necessary to contact your Senators and Representatives in Congress. If you are in agreement with my stance in any way, I ask that you e-mail this peice to them or voice your own concerns. I ask that you be proactive and get this piece, or your own letter to your elected representatives at the state level, because Constitutional amendments can also be passed if enough of the state legislatures approve of it.


***


All men are created equal. So says the Declaration of Independence, the document that first stated, loud and clear, the existence of the United States of America.
The document that followed it, The Constitution, was flawed, and this nation has tried 27 times to improve upon it.


There is now a push for a 28th Amendment to prevent gay marriages. This may be Amendment 28, but it is the first of its kind.


It is the first Amendment to explicitly discriminate against a human being. In this case it discriminates against a human being who is a citizen of the United States of America; people who are eligible to vote; people who pay their taxes; people in pursuit of happiness.


I believe this makes it the first amendment, which can, right now without the position of the Supreme Court, be deemed unconstitutional.


It should also be noted that this Amendment destroys the "separation of Church and State" barrier so much a part of the founding documents of this country. Our Founding Fathers were all Christian, but they understood that in this country there would be non-Christians who must be treated equally.


How does the amendment undo the intentions of our Founding Fathers? The makeup of the gay marriage protesters in San Francisco have been largely Christian; the protesters waving their Bibles high, condemning people to hell. Also present were Muslims. What I have not heard about are atheists or agnostics protesting.


The people protesting say it is an abomination before God. I say to them: your God is not mine. I say to them, my country says you and I are equal.


You have the right to marry the one you love. You have the right to file taxes as a couple; the right to adopt a child as a couple; the right to be with your lover in the hospital; the right to collect your lover's belongings upon passing.


But I/we do not; not without complicated paperwork requiring a lawyer, and even that fails to guarantee me everything you have.


For the first time in U.S. history, a religious doctrine - one espoused by Christianity, Islam and Judaism - will be codified in the founding document of a country that offered a life away from religious persecution.


But this is what the amendment will do: persecute me and others for our beliefs. Christians are doing it, Muslims are doing it, the president of the United States is doing it and so are the elected representatives.


For those against gay marriage, but not so extreme as the religious fanatics condemning me, us, to hell, is the argument that gay marriage will dilute and destroy the very foundation of marriage.


I say you are crazy. Follow the coverage of the gay marriages in San Francisco. What have I read, heard and saw? I read about couples, who have been together for years. For five, 10, 15, 25 years or more. How is such a bond going to destroy marriage? This bond, this relationship, this love should be seen as only validating marriage even more.


I haven't seen, heard or read about 22-year-old gay men getting married in San Francisco. But I have seen, heard and read about Britney Spears getting married in Las Vegas, a marriage that lasted just two days. If anything is being held up as destroying the idea of marriage, it should be this type, which unfortunately is all too common. That and marriage because the couple is pregnant, marriage for green cards, marriage forcibly arranged by parents.


Because the idea of marriage - straight marriage - is held so dearly by the major Western religions, I say that it is unconstitutional for an amendment to the Constitution to codify what religion can and cannot do. Let the Church, the mosque, the synagogue decide who they can and will marry.


This is why, for all intents and purposes of law, marriage should be stricken from government. Let marriage be the term for unions consecrated by a religious leader. Let those who take part in it use the term among friends and family, on wedding invitations, etc. etc.


Let civil union, or some other word, be the term used by government, in the court room, on paperwork, etc. etc.


Let the religious, persecuting extremists have their word. Because that's all it is.
At the end of the day I just want to be held up as equal before the law, with rights equal to my peers.


At the end of the day, I say let the religions have their protests and their beliefs, because even though I am not in agreement, this is a free country, and if they can protest, I want to give them something to protest. I do not want to take away or hinder their right.


In closing, President George W. Bush said this of the gay marriage issue:


"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."


If it were not for the few "activist judges" where would the antislavery, women’s suffrage or civil rights movements be?


Brian Swope
http://swopey.blogspot.com


***
Contact your U.S. Senator.
Contact your U.S. Representative.
The following link will take you to the beginning of this post regardless of what I post after this or where it is archived.
Quiet Riot