Top of this issue Current issue
|
|
|
The Unalienable Right to Pursue
Happiness Thoughts about Gay Marriage by Toni Seger I live in My biggest problem with the issue of gay marriage is that I
don't see an issue. The Founding Fathers risked their lives for a
passionately written Declaration of Independence that grants Americans the
right to pursue happiness; an incredible vision that is uniquely esoteric
among political statements. Children repeat the words in school rooms all the
time, but how many think about their significance? 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, There's a lot of competition about patriotism and love of
country these days. I love the Declaration of Independence and I'm not alone
in that. Who wouldn't love a document where the pursuit of happiness is a
right granted by God that cannot be denied? I also don't know anyone who would argue there is anything more
fundamental to happiness than marriage. I've been married 37 years and my
marriage is my greatest comfort. I can't imagine being so
arrogant as to think I have the right to tell someone else they're not
allowed to pursue happiness through marriage the way I have. This is especially
true in the The beauty of this declaration and the constitution that
followed is how we've been able to adapt them over a couple of centuries as
the original vision of our revolution matured into a
nation grappling with a changing world and a diverse citizenry. For example,
we all agree to read 'Men' as standing for 'Mankind' now. When I was young, I
had to argue for the larger, more inclusive statement because women weren't
considered equal to men, but I don't think I have to argue about that
nonsense anymore. A hundred years after our great declaration, we came to grips
with the contradiction of slavery and after a painful and bloody conflict, we
banned it. In the early 20th century, it was the turn of women to win the
right to vote and during the civil rights period of 1950's and 1960's, we
recognized we had to do more than declare a minority's right to vote, we had
to enforce that right or granting it was a hollow victory. For those who think they can turn back the tide of gay marriage,
understand you have history against you. Gay marriage is a natural outgrowth
in the continual extension of recognizing rights originally expressed when we
so passionately declared our independence. It's only natural for gays to seek
legal marriage, at this time. They are simply taking their turn, as a group,
to assert their God given right to pursue happiness. It wasn't that long ago
deaf students quietly demanded and won the right to have a deaf university
run by a deaf person. This quiet revolution was conducted with great dignity
and when it succeeded, one could only marvel that such a self-evident right
to self governance had ever been denied. There are privileges that come with a legal marriage. What
possible constitutional justification could there be to withhold privileges
from gay couples that are taken for granted by straight couples? And, how
ironic for a society to create barriers to marriage when half of all first
marriages fail with an even higher percentage of failure for later marriages.
If people are willing to make a commitment to marriage, they should be
entitled to its benefits. From joint taxes to controlling end of life issues;
when gays win the right to marry, they are winning the right to pursue
happiness, in all its manifestations, with the partner of their choice. Immediately upon hearing that In 1964, the Supreme Court found in Loving vs. Virginia,
that people of mixed races should have the right to marry. Previous to this
case, mixed marriages were still illegal in many states. For those whose
happiness appeared to them with a different racial complexion, there was
societal scorn in many places and downright danger in others. As a result,
before the aptly titled Loving case, a lot of people were completely
and irrevocably denied their greatest happiness. Like bringing an end to
slavery, Loving corrected a terrible wrong. I'm not in any doubt that denying gays the right to marry will
eventually be recognized as unconstitutional. I've read the constitution many
times and nowhere does it grant anyone the right to define happiness for
anybody else. Nor does the constitution ever say that one group of us can
define our own happiness at another group's expense. If that were true, what
would stop a majority from banning marriage for people with red hair?Or anyone below a certain height? Or anyone
with flat feet? If these things sound especially arbitrary, it's because denying
gays the right to pursue happiness through marriage is just as arbitrary.
Demonstrators are free to wave signs at me that marriage can only exist
between a man and a woman, but that doesn't mean there's a shred of truth in
it. The constitution allows for free speech, and those who don't like the
idea of gay marriage are free to voice their disagreements with the idea.
But, no one has to right to impose their definition of happiness onto others.
Otherwise, we'd still be British subjects because that's precisely what we
rejected when we threw off the yoke of monarchy and demanded freedoms of
speech, religion and assembly. In a rear guard action, 24 states have passed legislation denying
their own voters the right to bring gay marriage legislation to a vote in
their states. Even if all 50 states passed such bizarre legislation, it would
be no less opposed to everything the founders of this country fought and died
for. Maybe I'm just being patriotic to raise this, but our original
legislators were very idealistic about their revolution. They would have been
appalled to know legislation was ever created for the sole purpose of barring
any group from pursuing legitimate legislation. As for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), this isn't the first
time politicians have supported an action which they later regretted.
Politicians are bean counters. They have to be or they won't get elected, so
they tend to follow the loudest noise makers until they sense growing
momentum for a new paradigm. Power is ephemeral and it shifts. With regard to
gay marriage, momentum is clearly shifting towards legalization because
denying a God given right to pursue happiness is indefensible. I'm old enough
to remember job listings that read: 'Help Wanted – Male' and I can vividly
remember being an object of ridicule just for questioning why I couldn't
search them. Would anyone try to defend that practice now? It's illegal and
it should be. Looking for some fig leaf of support, opponents of gay marriage
insist that my marriage and all other straight marriages, across this
country, are somehow imperiled by gay marriage. Why we are in this danger is
never explained, but I do not live in fear that gays will use their new
status to attempt to ban straight marriages. I'm not concerned that gays will
try to humiliate me if I hold hands with my husband in public or throw trash
on my lawn for living openly as a heterosexual or subject me to any of the
indignities they have experienced. Countless numbers of people get married
every day, in this country, but most of us are only aware of a wedding when
we are personally invited. This is how it should be and how, I expect, things
will evolve for gays as well. Co-owner of a media/communications firm;ProseWorks(tm)
Associates since 1992, Toni Seger has been a
professional writer for four decades. Seger is the
author of "The Telefax Box", the first in
a satiric trilogy about our overly mechanized lives available at https://www.CreateSpace.com/3335778 She has produced and directed
original plays for stage and television and is an award winning film maker
with endorsements from Maine Public Broadcasting. Her film, "The Force
of Poetry" is available at https://www.CreateSpace.com/260202 |