An observation on the stronger (and more compelling) liberty to be sovereign in those rights and duties assigned to us by our Creator or whether to give some fraction of the whole of us special privilege not endowed to others based on physical mental emotional or spiritual preferences: Many of us (on either side of this debate) have thrown aside the larger issue for details of morality or some perceived lack of morality (neither of which to my mind should ever be part of politics). To my mind the larger issue here is not whether there is good or bad interjected into the behavior of individuals that burden others with their decisions but whether we believe that our liberties are a product of our existence or whether they are granted to us by other humans. If you believe that your rights are a product of your existence and inviolable then would you not say that the will of the voters who voted in harmony by the laws of the state in which they reside should not take precedence over some nebulous will of the people who are not citizens of the state in which the law was amended? Contrariwise if you believe that our rights are granted to us from other humans how can you expect those rights to remain anything more than whim of the elected majority? What then would separate us from the countries who are presided over by a monarch or committee or dictator? You see while those who benefit from this sort of overruling of the will of the people of North Carolina are happy that they can now claim said benefit that they could not claim before; at what cost to the rest of society is that benefit? For if it benefits society greatly and steps upon some individuals do we not the adjudge that the law then is still unjust? Or if it benefits a few at the cost of burdening the many, do we not say that there is harm done from that ruling? Now for myself I have no quarrel with those who would find the bonds of matrimony whatever their genders. But I realize that there is a burden that we place on those who have already entered into marriage as holy and sacrosanct who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. A burden forbidden to us by that same document that those in favor of marriage of the same gender cite as compelling evidence in law of the allowance of that marriage as just. You see if we are to cite the Constitution of the United States as compelling then that document must be compelling either in its entirety or it cannot be cited as compelling at all. It is an all or nothing proposition. To the extent that union between two (or indeed more) partners is allowable within the boundaries of justice then that should be allowed. However to decree that the people of a state cannot enforce a duly ratified amendment to that states own constitution where the federal constitution is directly barred from interfering (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (In other words If a power is not explicitly given to the federal government and that power or right exists then it is a right given either to the States as a whole or to the people as individuals)) and in this case the federal government IS directly prohibited from interfering in the political machinery of the states themselves by the First Amendment Free Exercise clause and by the entirety of the Tenth Amendment any decision made absent those two constraints is in itself an injustice that those wanting the right to marry regardless of gender would, I presume, risk life and limb to ensure that such decisions did not go into effect on the grounds that it may at some later time through the machinery of an efficient government constrain their individual liberty much further and secure them in chains of slavery (gilded though they be) more effectively than ever they would have been affected had that decision never been rendered. In short it is in vain to ask that decisions of this nature be granted the trappings of civility when they work a corruption of intent at some later date that may yet pervert the sanctity of justice that we hold dear. Do we as a people then say that we were wrong and renege? If we do renege how much easier will we be tempted to do the same the next time and the time after that until there is no compass by which we can adjudge a law or an act Blessed or Evil? How much easier is it then to blinker ourselves to the wider truth that we are succumbing to the heart of evil not out of choice but out of blindness to the truth? I ask but one thing: If we allow this today will that path be impossible to retreat from should we find that it leads not to liberty but to servility? If it lead to the former then blessed be that premise, but should it lead to the latter which of you who stand here to-day in benefit of these rulings will stand to turn the tide of slavery with me on the day we find that the path we have chosen leads us into the yoke and the shackle more quickly than and more deftly than any hunters snare? I would that we all be cursed with liberty unto eternity than we be blessed by the bondsman with chains of gilt and lead.
Posted on: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:18:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015