14 of 398

Disagree

Write now Article Tools

Yes lets confine marriage to one man and one woman. And while we're at it "exercise should be a sacred institution for overweight people only' and 'Color photography has no appeal to the colorblind' or what the heck let's just say 'Murder: Keep it in the family'

There's not a soul abroad on this wild and vast planet that does not need the love and attention of other people. Saints and sinners, lustful and level-headed all people need other people's care. Even the most cold-hearted lunatic sociopath serial killers still crave a sense of wholeness and stability in their lives.

Denying someone the ability to express their committed affection in a lawful and official manner is nothing short of tyranny. Take that right away and you start stepping on some serious toes. Slippery slope arguments be damned, just look at the cost.

Freedom of Speech - The first amendment is probably the single most important line of text in American and democratic history.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Preventing same-sex marriage contradicts nearly every aspect of this our most cherished addendum. By respecting conservative beliefs that man and woman alone are entitled to a 'sacred union' the government has already failed to ensure freedom of religion by allowing a tenet of faith and Christian tradition to trample the freedoms of another group.

Now consider the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In as many words the constitution does not need to explicitly list the rights of people for them to be just and lawful as rights. When the constitution was drafted who could have seen the need for information privacy as it applies now? What culture is so static that it can afford to lay down a set of rules and live by them forever?

Finally consider the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Think about that. All possibilities are supposed to be considered neutral until negated by constitutional amendment first or state law second. Obviously the nature of the constitution allows flexible interpretation which can be both good or bad depending on who's flexing it at the moment.

Others will surely cite the bible or other religious texts which is fine and dandy except for a little detail people seem to be forgetting about our system of government. Church and State do not mix, not now not ever. It blows my mind that people actually want to see Church and State united into one seething fascist mass of non-democracy. No one wants America to be a military dictatorship. No one wants to see the land of the free slowly crumble into a third-world schlock heap of despair and misery. Not one complete soul yearns for the destruction of their fellow man, woman or child.

No one wishes they were loved less for being who they are. And no one has the right to deny who you can love and be loved by in return.

Learn more about this author, Seth Keipper.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Marriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man?
We want to hear your view. Write now!