Question about Gay Rights

In a discussion, I was asked my opinion on Gay Marriage. While I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party, much like the differing opinions in the Democratic party, I believe that the denial of Gay Marriage rights is unconstitutional. Currently, there is a national "right" called marriage. It is not really a "right", but a status that affords the citizens that obtain a legal marriage certain benefits which include tax and survivorship benefits. In order to obtain this status, a man and a woman must have a legitimate marriage, either performed as a civil ceremony or as a civil ceremony which is part of a religious ceremony. By having a legitimate marriage, individual states cannot deny certain benefits afforded on a national level (each state has different benefits, but the marriage must be recognized).

And this is where the ban on gay marriage runs aground Constitutionally. Assuming all else is equal, each citizen is supposed to have rights equivalent to others in the same position. In other words, a woman is supposed to have at least the same rights as a man, and a man in one state is supposed to have at least the same rights under the US Constitution in one state as another. The Constitution is a quid pro quo document. It is stated in the Constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. Taking all of those together, it is illogical, and mere ideological based thinking, to deny the right of a man to marry another man when they have the right to marry a woman. That would mean that in certain situations, rights are curtailed merely based upon gender. In other words, remove all of the religious and moral arguments. At the very core, the denial of gay marriage rights is gender based discrimination.

Notice how I did not insert any moral aspects. This is merely based upon case law and logical thinking. I can be opposed morally to gay marriage yet, if I believe in the Constitution, I have to affirm the right of marriage to those of different sexual persuasion.

But, for the sake of argument, let's inject morality into this discussion. The number one reason why people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is tradition based upon the fact that this country was founded by Christians. While I do not want to get into a lengthly discussion of the Christianity of our founders, they were also white, men, and half slave owners, so by that logic, we should also remove the rights of minorities and woman and bring back slavery. Do you see the absurdity? But I digress. Let's get back to the moral aspects. So, if the union between a man and a woman is more moral than the union between a woman and a woman, why are their laws permitting divorce? Divorce is the absolute destruction of a marriage, and in some religious orders, a moral sin. Yet, we seem to be comfortable as a society with this aspect.

See, the problem with morality is that it only works for those with the exact same viewpoints. While it is great that we live our lives in a moral fashion according to our own beliefs, what is our right to force our morals onto others? I cannot remember where I heard this, but to me, this rings true. "I am fearful of the day in which my guns and my religion are controlled by the same organization."

Fortunately, for us, America is composed of people with morals and ethics that span opinions. While we must legislate baseline morality (e.g. no killing, no theft, etc.), we should rely upon our Constitution and our desire as Americans to include all rational and reasonable viewpoints. To me, although others in the Modern Whig Party may have differing opinions, this type of thought process is the way of the moderates and the way of the Georgia Modern Whig Party.