Is it fair to the minority gay population that anti gay marriage laws have been established by majority vote?

Question

Over and over again we have seen and heard our national officials and citizens debate, propose and make laws based on religious ideology, specifically Christianty. For example, anti gay marraige laws. These laws are based purely on religious ideology. Many of these laws were voted on and approved by our nations citizens.

Ideally our nation is set up on the belief of seperation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".

This thought protects both the freedom to practice religion and protects our government from being over run by religious fanatics.

Even though a law was voted into existence by a majority vote by our peers, does that make it ok and fair for the minority gay population?

Answer 1

A number of respondents seem to misunderstand the constitution. It was written to protect minorities from persecution. That's why the first amendment protected unpopular speech.

One person had it right - we need a thick line between a legal marriage, and a religious one. Religions have a value system that determines if gays can get married. Reform and Conservative Jews allow gay marriage, as do some Anglican congregations; others like the Baptists do not. All are entitled to set the rules as they see fit.

However, the federal government attaches over 1000 special rights to married status. And they then exclude 10% of the country from obtaining those rights (unless they want to encourage gay men to marry women simply to obtain those rights).

The best option would be to change all the federal laws to eliminate the term marriage. They should substitute civil union. No-one, gay or straight, would be married by the state. Your license would be for a civil union, not a marriage. This way, their would be a clear and uncomplicated division between the contractual term, and the emotive word marriage.

Finally - majority rule is not appropriate for many civil rights laws. If we had followed majority views, blacks would still be slaves, and certainly not allowed to marry white women. Women would not have the vote; and their property would pass to their husband when they married. Sometimes, social change requires our elected representatives to vote against the popular view.

Answer 2

Keep two things in mind. The separation of church and state was intended (and written exactly to state) that the government cannot make laws respecting the "establishment" of religion. These marriage laws may reflect some christian values, but they in no way work to "establish" a religion through an act of the government. Many laws (murder, for example) have "roots" in religion (the 10 commandments), but are not "religious" laws.

Second, this country's government (of the people and by the people) is based on a "majority rule" system. One man, one vote promises that a small minority cannot force the rest of the country to live in a way that they do not find acceptable. If your definition of "fair" is that someone can't do something that they want to, then possibly these laws are not "fair" to this minority. However, this DOES meet the definition of "fair" with respect to the country and Her citizens as a whole.

Answer 3

I'm not a minority, or a gay / lesbian, and even I will state that it isn't fair. There does need to be a thick line between church and state.

Technically, marriage is a contract by three parties. The groom, the bride, and the state. The state should not have any say-so, based on religion, in who is allowed to enter that contract. I fail to understand, if the decision was based on Christianity, how the party can enter into the arrangement in a non-demonination ceremony, but yet cannot be of the same sex. It's like picking apart the bible and only using the parts that suit them.

I also fail to understand how our government can throw a such a blanket law over everyone, assuming 100% of the United States is of a Christian religious or anti-gay background. I thought this was a democracy, "for the people, by the people." I'm not Christian, but I live here too, and do not appreciate our government speaking for me, in the assumption that I am.

Answer 4

Jefferson may have written those words, but they were in a PRIVATE letter to a private individual. They are NOT in any of our founding documents. We are a nation ruled by majority... hence our electoral process and the way we elect our leaders. Our leaders are there to enact the will of the people. Why should a minority (3%) be allowed to trample on the steady beliefs of the majority? Why is their opinion counted 100 times the majority?

Answer 5

Very good question to which there is really no true answer but only opinions. If you ask the minority gay people they will say it is unfair but I on the other hand would disagree. In theory all of our laws are based on what the morals of the majority of the people was at the time the law passed. The morals of the majority of the people in this country are morals that are taught by Christian faiths so long as people have moral beliefs taught to them by a religion and they stand in the majority is it real to believe you can separate church from state. In the gay marriage issue I have a moral belief that says it is wrong but I am of the belief that if it doesn't harm me or my society then I will not interfere.

Bottom line is that this country was set up on the idea that the majority rules and the majority says no gay marriage.

Answer 6

Well lets look at what marriage actually means. It is the joining if a man and woman. This is simply a fact. Domestic partnership gives the ability to have the same laws as marriage. Accept the equal ternm that has been offered. You can keep fighting, but lets be honest, America is run by old christian right wing men. You will probably face the same struggles as women fight for abortion. Its going to depend on who's in office!

Answer 7

Yes! The majority should rule. Is it fair to shove a law down the throats of the majority?

When you vote for a candidate, who wins - the one with the most votes. Same thing should go for laws. (That's why I'm pissed about the illegal alien criminals - the majority isn't getting their way and that's wrong.)

Answer 8

Nothing is more horrible than a true democracy. Some African countries have had just that, with the result that the mass of people, the majority, after they have finished off some minority, splits again and turn on itself to keep on killing.

Humans are cruel, savage animals by nature. If the USA had a true democracy, all openly gay people would be hanging from trees. And the same would happen to Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, etc.

Count your blessings that there is a Republic. You may have fewer rights, but the government has the guns necessary to make that majority of savages respect your life, and mine.

Answer 9

Yes it is. Gays have a right to a legal union for shared property purposes. Marriage is a religious sacrement. Homosexuality does not naturally promote family. Family is the logical result of marriage. The Constitution is a piece of paper. It does not superceed God and the morality behind our laws. So the objection to your issue is chiefly a religious one that gays cannot likely resolve.

Answer 10

Majority rules.