Clearly, there is a process for funneling 'beliefs' and 'needs of the people (or some subsection)' into 'laws'. Also clearly, the union of these beliefs and 'needs' is not possible; there are too many instances of conflict. So, what do we fall back on?
With my most Libertarian-sounding voice, I say "the rights of the people". This should be the backbone of our law-making process. I do not believe, incidentally, that this is purely a Libertarian concept. The quantity of the laws is nothing; the quality is everything. If it takes one or ten thousand laws to protect the rights of the people, then that is the right number.
So, I do not believe the 'less is more' when it comes to creation of laws to protect our rights. Rather, the exact 'right number' is the correct number.
So, these groups have the right to advocate their viewpoints, whether heavenly or earthly inspired. My point is that the overriding 'judgement' as to the 'correctness' of the law should be the rights of ALL the people, not the beliefs of any individual group of people.
On the issue of gay marriage, the issue is clear: either allow it, or don't. If you allow it, then the rights of gay couples are protected. If you don't, what is the 'penalty' to the religious groups? They claim that allowing gay marriage is clearly against God's will. Just as clearly, that shouldn't amount to a hill of beans in the decision making process, as we have a secular government. They claim that it contributes to the moral decay of America; again, that is their religious interpretation. As I've said before, the gay relationships I've seen are paragons of commitment and love.
So, do we trample on the rights of gay people to formalized commitment to satisfy the teachings of established churchs? The argument that we should 'because it's always been that way' is bunk. For most of history, there have been laws that strip the basic human rights of many ethnic groups. Those laws, though ancient, have always been wrong.
I fear I have rambled on, possibly around the point you were making. My point is that the religious groups can and should be represented, but their mere existence as religious groups give them no special authority to usurp the rights of other, opposing groups. |
