This past Tuesday, North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, based on a referendum with a 61-39 vote in favour of banning same-sex marriage. Supporters of the ban cited the need to “protect marriage” and stated that this was done because “…the whole point – is simply that you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults.” To that, all I can say is, “Are you kidding me?”
Quite frankly, I find this outrageous and a gross infringement of guaranteed rights under the American constitution. I realize that marriage is a state issue down in the USA, but nevertheless, the government was designed to protect rights, not put them up to a vote of a referendum. In fact, this to me highlights the dangers of a direct democratic system – that the rights of an individual can be put up to a vote is terrifying. It is scenarios such as this one that allow majorities to subjugate minority groups, and lead to the regression of society and of basic rights. I feel that the issue of same-sex marriage shouldn’t be centred around the question of whether or not it is morally right or acceptable; rather, the basis for debate should be whether as a society, we are willing to restrict the choices that people can make with their own lives. It is the duty of the government to protect these rights, and taking the issue to a referendum is not the right way to deal with constitutional issues.
The United States prides itself as being the “Land of the free,” and yet, basic rights as the choice of who one marries are being restricted based on the beliefs of what can be simplified to special interest groups – albeit large special interest groups. The leader of the group behind the vote, Tami Fitzgerald, defended her group by saying “We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage.” My question then becomes, why is it that the definition of marriage is limited to that found in biblical accounts? Moreover, following the definition of “marriage” as the union between man and woman, does being “pro-marriage” not in turn make the group anti-gay? Finally, if these groups are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, why not target something like divorce, which ACTUALLY breaks people apart, rather than unifying them…?
This is clearly a controversial issue, though I don’t see why that is the case. People see same-sex marriage as wrong from a religious standpoint. If that’s part of the values and beliefs that they were raised with, so be it. That should not, however, give them free rein to try and limit others from making decisions that affect nobody’s lives but their own. It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court of the United States – recognizing that this is an infringement of basic rights – repeals this amendment, and those like it, and sooner rather than later.
