The First Amendment along with the other nine amendments
that we collectively refer to as the Bill of Rights was drafted by James
Madison in response to the strongly voiced opinions of the then several states
that the Constitution did not provide sufficient protection for individual
liberties. In this very first amendment the framers made clear the bedrock
principle that in a free society the right to hold your own beliefs and to
communicate those beliefs was not to be infringed. The tenth Amendment then wrapped
things in a bow: The powers not
designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Today we find ourselves in a debate over the rights of a
class of people – in this case, persons who wish to protect rights of gay people consistent with rights of
heterosexual people regarding marriage, survivorship, property held in common,
etc. – who have long felt trammeled at the behest of those whose dogmatic
religious stances deny their legitimacy. The Supremes have ruled that in the
United States, same-sex life partnerships are fully as valid as opposite-sex
pairings and that the several states are barred from making laws to the
contrary.
We could spend the rest of our lives arguing the ins and
outs of the ruling and of the multitude of positions taken by various
constituencies who consider themselves key stakeholders to the question of gay
rights. I am not real keen on re-arguing this battle. The Supremes have ruled,
I agree with the ruling although not entirely with the reasoning and I worry
that any faults in the reasoning may offer an opening in future by an even more
‘conservative’ Court to overturn this week’s decision. But it is what it is and
the ruling stands for now.
Many voices, thankfully not a majority but still way too
many for my comfort, are being raised to decry the ruling as godless in this
country that they would like us to
believe was founded by and for Christians. And these voices are the ones that
worry me most profoundly. But rather than engage in a one-sided debate on the
matter, I thought I would lay out the reasons for my concern and let you take
them as you will:
First, any suggestion that this country was founded as a
Christian enterprise is clearly specious but nonetheless touted loudly and
often by those who would have us all gathering at the river every Sunday. It
was not. And if you have not read – at a minimum
– the Constitution itself as well as the Federalist Papers, please do not
engage me in debate on this point as you are simply not qualified for the
contest.
Second, freedom of
religion demands as a bedrock principal freedom from religion. Otherwise, we’re a short slide down a very slippery
slope in the direction of a state religion. Which religion should be the
authorized one? Christianity? Fine, then which version of that truth do we
follow? Even within Christianity there is not unanimity as to which version of
your foundation document – your bible – is the one and true rendering. Which
one do we as a society sanction? The only way to avoid the eventual slide into
the vortex of state-sanctioned religion is freedom from.
Third, if we are to establish any democratic system of
governance, it seems to me that the design must be undertaken under the veil of
ignorance (Google will take you to a reasonable if incomplete rendering of this
idea) regarding original position as stated by Rawls and respected in the
writings of Kant, Locke, Jefferson, et al. Christians, be careful what you ask
for.
Finally, and this
really gets to the nugget of my stance: Why do you care? The gay rights folks
care because they feel their civil liberties are being curtailed on the basis
of beliefs that have no legitimate standing as constitutional determinants. The
anti-gay rights folks care because they simply feel that anyone who doesn’t
conform to their view of the well-ordered life has no place in society. Which
stance do you find the more compelling?
What is most perplexing is not that the Supremes have ruled
as they have, but rather that the ruling was not unanimous.
The argument in main is settled, at least for the moment.
This is not the time for continued debate. It is, rather the time for paying
close attention to those whose continued caterwauling daily plays across the
news feeds. Politicians of a certain bent are promising if elected to find ways
to roll back the rights affirmed this week by the majority of the Supreme
Court. Pay attention to whose voices are raised most loudly and unreasonably.
These are folks for whom I will never, ever vote.
I’m makin’ a list, checkin’ it twice…
Thank you!
ReplyDelete