Reactionary. Amendment One in North Carolina is the so called "Marriage Protection Amendment" or the "Anti-Gay Amendment" depending on which side is spewing. I'm against it. It's an amendment that's parallel to prefacing a comment with "in my opinion" or "I think". It's redundant.
And, I don't understand how gay unions infringe upon the sanctity of marriage. It's a question of basic morality (basic human rights) that is getting reframed in terms of religion and marriage. A gay man should be able to get insurance for his partner in the same manner a straight man can for his wife. I don't think homosexuality is condoned in Scripture, but it is unilaterally understood to be biblical truth to love your neighbor and the foreigner.
Now for the interesting part. Why is the amendment up for the vote now? What got us here? Is it the population growth? Is it the poor economy and the need for a scape goat? I'd like to see the social and intellectual history that led to this political byproduct. Frankly, it scares me that this is a legal/political issue in the same manner prayer in schools has been a legal/political issue. Why are we dragging the government into these private matters? I always understood the role of an amendment was to guarantee individual rights, ex. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments of the Constitution. The separation of Church and State wasn't to protect the State from the Church from the State. The US was founded by religious dissidents who were being persecuted by the State.
This brouhaha represents a breakdown in the understanding of the role of government. Or, perhaps, a sad and desperate evolution in the role of government. Is the church being replaced by the state-- is the Church abdicating her authority to the State by actions such as these?
No comments:
Post a Comment