I believe that we as a nation have forgotten how to govern and what duties we as citizen have to one another. It is our duty as citizens to demand changes from our representitives that would better our nation as a whole. To that end it is our duty as citizens to be knowledgeable about the world around us so that the changes we request may benifit all, and raise the standing of our nation and the freedoms it gaurantees. In the course of doing so we must be vigilant that the changes we demand are not changes that would censor one group for the purpose of exhalting another. It is to this end that everyone is gauranteed the same rights, so that the promise of America can be fullfilled, that we all can succeed or fail in the totallity of life based on our merits. It is this ideal that our Constitution and all the laws that have followed should protect and nourish.
Logic then, tells us that a right held by some and not all is not a right but an advantage for some and a censor to those who do not have that advantage, thus it is not a right at all. Logic then tells us that there are only human rights, rights that pertain to all equally. Of course there are those who would argue that my point is in error and use an example such as the right to vote. It is given to those only over the age of 18 after all and thus eveyone doesn't have the right to vote. My rebutle is that that right is applied equally to all of us, once we have reached a certain age, in this case 18, we can express our political will the same as any one. The core ideal is that we are given equal footing from which to persue our liberty and happiness. This same logic can even be applied to the example of a felon who may have lost his or her right to vote, they lost their right by their own merit, and must suffer its loss to protect the rights of everyone else, so that the right of safety may be enjoyed by all. Equallity under the law.
Which brings me to my topic. In a country where the ideal of equality is supposed to be our core value, that from which all laws are derived, how is it that one group of people has been and is still suppressed. How is it that we allow, and in many cases demand, that some of our citizens do with out the right to be with, and commit to the one they love. Some, indeed too many, continue to demand that our gay brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, forgo the rights of marriage. To be clear, I am not demanding that we institute a law that would require preists, or other spiritual leaders perform religious ceromonies. There should be no law requireing anything of religions, only that the practitioners do not stiffle the rights of others, a law that is applicable to all. Equallity under the law. And because people find and practice religion for reasons competely their own, there should be no law thrust upon others by the demand of religion. I only demand that when two people go before a court of law, whos very existince is to ensure equallity, where there shall be by our founders will, "Equall justice under the law", that they be given the same protections and rights as any other in that court of law.
We began to find this reasoning with the abolishment of slavery and later civil rights, showing that skin color was not adiquate to withhold human rights. We further this ideal when we as a nation concluded that women had the right to vote and to work and earn as much as men, showing that a persons gender is not adiquate to withhold a persons human rights.
We are now faced with a test of our pledge to these ideals. There is no reason (defined: scintific mental analysis) behind a ban on gay marriage. There are only human rights, no male rights or female rights, christian or islamic rights. I find it hard to believe the the words "All men are created equal", truly means just males. And if indeed those words are inclusive of eveyone in our nation than we as citizens have a duty to ensure that all people have the right to persue their life, liberty, and happiness in a way that best meets their own measure of success.
Logic then, tells us that a right held by some and not all is not a right but an advantage for some and a censor to those who do not have that advantage, thus it is not a right at all. Logic then tells us that there are only human rights, rights that pertain to all equally. Of course there are those who would argue that my point is in error and use an example such as the right to vote. It is given to those only over the age of 18 after all and thus eveyone doesn't have the right to vote. My rebutle is that that right is applied equally to all of us, once we have reached a certain age, in this case 18, we can express our political will the same as any one. The core ideal is that we are given equal footing from which to persue our liberty and happiness. This same logic can even be applied to the example of a felon who may have lost his or her right to vote, they lost their right by their own merit, and must suffer its loss to protect the rights of everyone else, so that the right of safety may be enjoyed by all. Equallity under the law.
Which brings me to my topic. In a country where the ideal of equality is supposed to be our core value, that from which all laws are derived, how is it that one group of people has been and is still suppressed. How is it that we allow, and in many cases demand, that some of our citizens do with out the right to be with, and commit to the one they love. Some, indeed too many, continue to demand that our gay brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, forgo the rights of marriage. To be clear, I am not demanding that we institute a law that would require preists, or other spiritual leaders perform religious ceromonies. There should be no law requireing anything of religions, only that the practitioners do not stiffle the rights of others, a law that is applicable to all. Equallity under the law. And because people find and practice religion for reasons competely their own, there should be no law thrust upon others by the demand of religion. I only demand that when two people go before a court of law, whos very existince is to ensure equallity, where there shall be by our founders will, "Equall justice under the law", that they be given the same protections and rights as any other in that court of law.
We began to find this reasoning with the abolishment of slavery and later civil rights, showing that skin color was not adiquate to withhold human rights. We further this ideal when we as a nation concluded that women had the right to vote and to work and earn as much as men, showing that a persons gender is not adiquate to withhold a persons human rights.
We are now faced with a test of our pledge to these ideals. There is no reason (defined: scintific mental analysis) behind a ban on gay marriage. There are only human rights, no male rights or female rights, christian or islamic rights. I find it hard to believe the the words "All men are created equal", truly means just males. And if indeed those words are inclusive of eveyone in our nation than we as citizens have a duty to ensure that all people have the right to persue their life, liberty, and happiness in a way that best meets their own measure of success.
Comments
You know you have my backing on this. I am proud of you for telling it how it should be. With supporters like you, we are not far from reaching that goal.
Love you!