The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous documents in the world. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, expressed the grievances, of his fellow citizens, about the way the British Crown was treating them. He opens his piece by stating that all men are created equally and they have rights that cannot be taken away from them. Jefferson goes on to list all of the ways the king has treated the colonies and their people. He mentions taxation without representation, the presence of troops in peaceful time and their actions, and denying people a trial by jury. These are things, that today we take for granted. Jefferson refers to the king as a tyrant, who has repeatedly injured his subjects and is not fit to rule them. The writing of this document signaled that start of the United States.
To relate Jefferson’s ideas to a contemporary issue, I want to use the line “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit if Happiness.” After reading this line, the topic of gay marriage came to my mind. At the time, Jefferson was writing, the men that he referred to were only white men. Eventually, this changed to include African Americans and others. Today, the U.S. prides itself on its citizens having many freedoms. This may be true but gays who wish to get married are being denied their pursuit of Happiness, which Jefferson said all men have. Why does a place that brags about the freedom of its people deny the freedom of marriage to a minority group? Some claim that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sacred institute of marriage. Others use their religious views that say marriage is to between a man and women. The separation of church and state should cause religious views to not be present when laws are being made, but this does not happen. People who are gay are no less human than people who are straight, so why are they being treated differently? They were created equal to all other men and they are not asking for a lot. They want the chance to live a life with a commitment that expresses their love for another. Married couples in the United States receive certain “benefits.” They have the right of inheritance if their spouse dies, the right to make medical decisions for their spouse in times of emergencies, and they can receive social security benefits. Do not all people who are spending the rest of their life with a partner deserve these rights? For some people the idea of gay marriage is out of the question, but what about having civil unions or partners benefits? These two things could allow people to have all the benefits that married couples do but without having the label of marriage. Is wanting equality, in modern America, such a horrible thing?
I found Jefferson’s writing to be very interesting because it is the basis on which our country was founded. Jefferson and the other founding fathers imagined a country where its people would be free from the rule of a tyrant. Many of the things that he lists are things that we take for granted, but across the world, and in some cases in the U.S., certain rights and equalities are still being fought for. The piece must be interpreted differently as the times changes. Times have changed to where being gay is not a crime, so why are they being treated as equals? Jefferson’s piece remains to be relevant today, and any piece of work that can still be looked to hundreds of years later for guidance, must contain some great ideas.
3 comments:
Kevin brings up a good question in his post regarding, “Why does a place [United States] that brags about the freedom of its people deny the freedom of marriage to a minority group?” In looking at the whole gay marriage topic, it appears that the only time a debate about the issue occurs, is during a major election. In the 2004 Presidential Election, Republicans framed gay marriage as a moral value and joined forces with groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and other religious conservative leaders to promote gay marriage bans both at the federal and state level. Their hope was that by giving religious conservatives a reason to vote, they would go to the polls and vote for Bush, since Bush would be campaigning on a moral values platform that complemented the bans. However, once Bush’s re-election was secure, he had no time for the issue and it was basically dropped until the 2006 election. Therefore, the whole topic comes down to exploiting a group to hold onto power.
In Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence,” Jefferson mentions that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. In Rousseau’s “The Origin of Civil Society,” Rousseau argues that we are all descendents of King Adam and Emperor Noah. However, when Bush framed the recent elections as moral debates and pandered to religious groups by implying the notion that one group is supreme over another, he violated not Jefferson and Rousseau’s points about equality, but the same values many of the religious conservatives claim to follow such as love and forgiveness for all. As such, the notion that the gay marriage issue is used to preserve power, can be seen from Bush’s former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, David Kuo, (see link blow) arguing that once the election was over, Bush had no need for the religious right and felt that the same folks he used to win re-election, like Dobson, needed to be “controlled.”
I agree with Matt's points as well as Kevin's. It seems like the Declaration in many cases is out of date. Most of the arguments that I have heard against gay marriage are all religiously based. I mean if they weren't what else would the reason to deny two people to get married? Many of the politicians against gay marriage use religion as a reason and know that they will have religious conservatives on their side. But at the same time, many people that claim to be good Christians that are against gay marriage are not carrying out their part of the deal to "love thy neighbor as thy self". Christian ideals say that we are all supposed to be forgiving and accepting of differences and good moral people, but yet they scoff at gay couples and do not want them to have the privilege of getting married. All of this seems interesting to me because as Kevin said there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so these things should not even be considered when making the decision about gay marriage. When religion is left out of the issue, I was wondering what are the other reasons people have to support the ban against gay marriage?
I really agree with Kevin on this issue. For me, it's really the separation of church and state, and how hard it is to know whether or not a law is from a religious standpoint or whether it is actually a legitimate thing. The fact that Bush probably just used the gay marriage issue to appeal to Christian and other religious voters is very stupid for me. (for lack of a better word) But the whole reason behind that law is totally religious... It has absolutely nothing to do with the safety and reliability of the government or of any citizens. All it does is to discriminate against another minority group.
Post a Comment