https://youtube/watch?v=fv7jrYL64nk Alright, this is going to come off as overly-political and Im potentially going to lose some friends for this--but as Eddy Avila so eloquently put it: whenever you stay silent, this a political notion, as you are indirectly expressing your approval. This is old news. But the fact that it was even advocated as an amendment astounds me. Congressman Huelskamp proposed a constitutional amendment in J.J. Resolution 51--also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment--that states that, Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. The campaign bases its logic on fallacious arguments. It claims that “marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman.” I oppose this by the following rationale: i. First and foremost, there is already a logical flaw in this argument—regardless of one’s religious beliefs, there is a separation of church and state. In order for this amendment to be passed, you must first discredit our secular government and demand that we deliberately enforce specific religious views. ii. Secondly, campaign states that, “not only does marriage unite the couple, but it was created to care for the next generation”. If we act according to this logic, we would also have to prevent infertile couples, sterile individuals, couples that do not plan to have children, older couples, and women/men who have lost their reproductive capacities to diseases like cancer from marrying. iii. Yes, I understand that we absolutely must respect one another’s religious beliefs—however, we are not entitled to impede on one another’s religious freedoms. If this amendment is to be passed, we must first repeal the first amendment, dictating that “[c]ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”... iv. I believe in equal respect for all religion (or lack thereof), but no specific religious ideologies can be enforced in the Constitution, as it contradicts its secularity, as well as the first amendment: this, in itself, is fundamentally unconstitutional. v. I am not addressing an issue of morality. Law cannot be subjective. This is an issue of legality, questioning only whether a law can be deemed constitutional; this proposition challenges and disrespects our autonomy as individuals. tl;dr: The fact that this amendment was even proposed bothers me. And quite frankly, Im pretty annoyed that I hadnt looked into this sooner.
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 06:49:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015