Quote:
Originally posted by sigmadiva
That is why I specifically said we are a country based on Biblical (Christian) ideals.
|
Indirectly, perhaps, through the common religious ideology of the men who came together and signed
the Declaration of Independence in terms of what they believed and how they were raised, but NOT officially. Official correlation between Christianity and the affairs of the governance of the citizenry is precisely what they emancipated themselves from the British for.
That is why I said I think it is more of a moral issue. Should the government legislate a moral issue, probably not. [/QUOTE]
Exactly, and from a legal perspective this is what the law says in general: that insofar as there lacks some important governmental interest justifying State legislation that deminish the rights of others, goverment cannot interfere with the individual, private right to personal autonomy within which government should not invade. This attitude of the law makes a lot of sense. It actually works the the benefit of both sides. Let's take my earlier example of interracial marriage again. What this legal principle means is that two individuals have the right to marry whomever thet wish, that there exists a certain amount of autonomy that they each enjoy beyond which the government cannot invade, so long as there is not important governmental objective warranting the invasion of those rights. In that instance, there is not important GOVERNMENTAL objective, such as health concerns, economic conerns, etc. Moral implications of the activity are too remote and subjective for the government to use the weight of its entity to imfringe on those unions. The same idea rests with the gay marriage issue. The only area that is questionable in my opinion may be health concerns due to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS withink nthe gay community. But I think promoting or allowing civil relationships to flourish through recognition of marriage among individuals who wish to do so would possibly have a positive effect on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. We'd have to see.
But, 'we the people' elect government (congressmen, city and state representatives) based on some principle that is in alignment with our own and we the people expect our elected officials to carry out their campaign promises. If one just so happen to be a law banning gay marriages and that is what the people want, then it becomes law. This is why voting is sooooo important. [/QUOTE]
You brought up a relationship between the oppression of blacks to the need for government to get involved in your earlier post. Unfortunatley, I think that this statement illustrates that should we follow this line of thinking without limits, those horrible acts by people that were allowed BY THE GOVERNMENT to do, i might add, may not have been stopped. That represents a compelling governmental interest that justified the government involving itself and infrigning on the rights of the oppressors. This infringement, though, is itself not without limits. As I said before, it works for the nebefit of both sides. The government will only go so far in infringing on the rights of people, even with important governmental objectives. This is why, even though much of the way we live in America is very segregated and we all know that a lot of that has to do with continuing and persistent prejudice and racism, the government is not going to go into the homes, schools, churches, etc. of every person and force them to integrate their lives with someone of a different color. Those individuals who wish to isolate themselves in a way that they interact with people of their own "kind" have the private right of autonomy to do so, withoutht he threat of the government coming in, even though the government has made it clear the objectives it has and thinks the nation should have in ridding the society of that kind of seperatism. It can't force people to give in to so-called "moral " standards. All it can do, and all its supposed to do is refrain from imposing oppressive actions itself, which is what it should have done in this case.
I just think at some point you (the general you) have to take a stand. The issue is not as simple and easy as it seems. Sure, I may have one or two neighbors who may engage in some activity I don't agree with, and I can kinda ignore it. It is not hurting me directly in any way. [/QUOTE]
Which is why peole should not want the strong arm of the government to take these sorts of actions. If it doesn't bother you in any real way, then what is the point in making the lives of so many people miserable when what they want to do wouldn't harm anyone else?