My argument is founded on a basic civil rights rationale. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 (with a yea vote from the US), outlined basic human rights and guaranteed those rights to every person. While not a treaty or other binding resolution, the document was used to define several items included in the UN Charter, which IS binding on all member states. The Declaration states that such rights are "without distinction of any kind." OK. Sounds pretty clear to me. Everything in there applies to everyone, regardless of, well, anything.
Article 7 continues with "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Again - seems pretty clear to me. Everyone is protected from discrimination. Period. Got it.
Article 16 - 1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
This latter article provides a little room for both conservative and liberal interpretations. I recognize that. Many conservatives would probably argue that it is the man and the woman who are given the right to marry one another. However, nothing in the document explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but just that men and women each have the right to marry. It doesn't say who they can and cannot marry. That would discriminate, wouldn't it? By using such language, the declaration is far ahead of its time (remember, 1948) by truly holding to its principles and NOT discriminating.
The Declaration was also established on the idea of family. Family, as defined by Merriam-Webster (granted, they put E.V.O.O in there...) is "a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head." It is also "the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children, also any of the various social units different from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family, i.e single parent family." To all those out there that say same-sex marriage will destroy the family unit - I say - we ARE the family unit. Just different from yours. And, relax, that's ok. I'll leave your family alone to believe what you want to believe and enjoy the human rights you've been given - just give me the same respect and consideration.
Another declaration speaks to these rights as well. Arguably one of the single greatest sentences in the English language, and one of the strongest rebuttals of tyranny, the Declaration of Independence begins with, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Should same-sex marriage be denied, that strong oppressive, tyrannical power, would be a direct affront to my rights under both the UN Declaration and the Declaration that formed the nation.
The rights guaranteed by and to humanity include religious freedoms as well. And I think that's an immensely important right to have. I don't think that any religious organization should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage if that offends their beliefs any more than I should be compelled to believe what's written in the Book of Mormon, or believe that Jesus has come or hasn't come, or that Buddah is the way to enlightenment. But civil recognition is in order - and long overdue. That recognition begins with the realization that it is a Right (capital R, thank you) for two people who are of legal age, and consent to enter into the contractual obligation that is marriage, to indeed marry. Keep religion where it belongs - in church, temple, mosque - in its place of worship. Why is it necessary to force it upon someone else? Wasn't our country created upon rejection of such one-sided, oppressive behavior and invasion into the private lives of citizens? Do unto others, my friends...
No comments:
Post a Comment