Byronic Man has one of the most consistently entertaining blogs I’ve read. He usually doesn’t get into politics, but he ventured out a wee bit here and it’s classic. (My favorite just might be Amendment IX…maybe, ugh, so hard to choose!)

The Byronic Man

As you’ve undoubtedly heard, North Carolina has amended their state Constitution to ban gay marriage.  Why not just pass a law, you ask?  Because a law like that would be unconstitutional.  But if you change the Constitution?  You can make any crazy law you want!  Bear in mind, regardless of your opinion on gay marriage: North Carolina has put in to their Constitution a limitation of some people’s rights.  In other words, a Constitution – usually for defending rights – is being used to say that specific people have certain rights, specific people don’t.

Also, in exciting news, just come to light is this original draft of the Bill of Rights as written by the people of North Carolina and submitted to the earliest congress!  What a coincidence, right?

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more decent, normal union; provide for the common defense…

View original post 416 more words


Author: therealkenjones

writer, artist, wannabe photographer, recovering Southern Californian...

2 thoughts on “”

  1. I had to stop by my pal TheRealKenJones site to check what was going on in his neck of the woods. I’m glad I did. Over the past several weeks I’ve been pondering the issue of Same Sex Attraction and civil rights.

    It seems to me that what we have there, is the intersection of “Walk” and “Don’t Walk.” More specifically, what we’re dealing with is an issue of human behavior and law. It’s nothing new. Murder is a human behavior, as is theft, and extramarital consanguinity. (That’s my polite term for “adultery.”)

    I take a very broad approach of understanding toward this topic, and have, for quite some time.

    As I see it, orthodox religious folk – among whom I count myself – understand that SSA is, by comparative standards, a disquieting issue, the behaviors of which have been, are, and continue to be hotly debated. Face it – we don’t know all there is to know about any one thing. So, we must continually strive toward even further understanding, which is the greater issue anyway.

    As I see it, no person has been denied equal protection under the law, for laws and procedure exist to allow and permit others folks to tend to the personal affairs of others. For example, it’s possible for any two people to go before a magistrate or judge and obtain “rights of,” or “power of attorney.” ROA or POA is “a legal instrument which grants another person the authority to act as your legal representative, and to make binding legal and financial decisions on your behalf.” There are several types of POAs, including “specific,” and “general,” which is the more broad case.

    Marriage – traditionally and historically understood as a union of one man and one woman – has conferred general rights automatically. As I understand the issue, it is the automatic conferring of such rights that is at issue.

    There are, however, other issues involving private enterprise – such as with insurance – that are also cited as cases in point for same sex marriage. With respect for taxation – a matter of federal jurisprudence – I could see some room for civil union/civil partnership which would also grant similar deductions to such couples as are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. I suppose if a federal ruling were to establish a basis for the same, that same sex couples would be able to enjoy lowered family insurance rates. However, insurance regulation is largely a states rights issue. So that matter could remain to be seen.

    I do differentiate between “marriage” and “civil union” for several reasons, not the least of which is that “marriage” has historically been held and understood as a religious ceremony, whereas “civil union” is a state of being recognized by the government without religious inference.

    By differentiating between the two, we can continue to promote the private practice of religion, while simultaneously distancing governmental intrusion upon the practice (which intrusion would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution).

    1. Thanks for the comment. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond (busy, busy).

      Your entire argument is sound and probably the best I’ve3 seen in defense of civil unions. I would fundamentally agree with it except for two points.

      1: The assumption that marriage “belongs” to Christianity or Judaism or Islam and therefore is subject to their definitions. Marriage predates, and culturally exceeds, all of the modern religions and therefore can include them without being bound by them, i.e., all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. The United States is Constitutionally restricted from favoring any religion (or any 3 or 4). By acknowledging marriage with legal and financial concessions in an effort to promote it, the government can only do so as a legal union. To wit, all marriages are technically civil unions as far as the law is concerned so there is no need to differentiate them (marriage is marriage whether conducted by a priest, preacher, imam, rabbi, justice of the peace, or–in certain circumstances–captain of a ship).
      2. Providing for both religious marriage and civil unions is built entirely upon the firmament of “separate but equal”, which has proven itself unworkable in practicality. There would inevitably come a point where rights granted to married couples would be challenged in extension to civil unions (or vice versa). I think this may be particularly true in regards to issues surrounding children.

      As a non-religious person I don’t make the same presumptions about marriage as people of faith. In fact, I am not morally against polygamy or polyandry. However, I do think it is demonstrable that such arrangements create a power structure that engenders psychological and emotional abuse and also re-creates some of the legal uncertainties two-person marriage resolves. So I think there is a sound and viable argument against poly-marriages.

      I do respect religious institutions and the demands of faith on both individuals and congregations. Churches should retain the right to decide whom they will provide marriage services to, or even acknowledge as married within their church. They do this with interracial and interfaith marriages already. No one has the right to be married as Baptists if they do not meet the requirements for a Baptist marriage. Thereby each side retains its own rights without denying rights to the other side.

      Ultimately, I cannot see a logical reason–and have yet to hear a logical argument made–as to why the sway of the church should extend beyond these bounds, especially when the rights of individuals is at stake.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s