At the heart of this question we must look to the government to recognize and protect our freedom to conduct ourselves, at all times, in a conscionable manner. Anything else from the government, represents a coercive influence. Coercion in government is the antithesis of freedom.
It should therefore be self evident to all of us that liberty is represented by the following statement:
'No person shall be required to violate an issue of personal conscience in the performance of public or private service to another.'
I believe that definition needs to be extended. For example, an opponent of abortion may believe that abortion is murder, and anyone who facilitates it is a party to murder. And, since fetuses cannot protect themselves, that person may believe it is up to them, as a matter of conscience, to provide that protection. Using that logic, a person could protect a fetus from abortion through any means, including murder. That person, in their frame of morality, would be acting "in a conscionable manner".
I would amend your statement to read that the role of government is not only to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, but to respect and guarantee the diverse nature of the morality systems of its citizens. In the difficult task of melding these diverse morality systems, the overriding rule must be to first protect the rights of all citizens, and only subsequently to protect the differences in morality.
Interestingly, today the Pope came out with the declaration that gay marriage is part of a new 'ideology of evil'. Kudos to the Pope for not hiding behind the bogus 'nature' argument that the conservatives use to justify their anti-gay marriage stance. Let's keep that argument pure and undiluted: a portion of Americans are arguing that gay unions are sinful and evil, and the rights of gays who attempt to enter into such unions should not be protected.
I do not understand the argument of some that homosexuals are attempting to 'force' their lifestyle onto heterosexuals. To the contrary, it is these narrow-minded religious fanatics that are attempting to force THEIR moral viewpoint onto homosexuals, who simply want the same rights as are afforded to those who enter into formal heterosexual unions. I believe if you did apply your statement:
'No person shall be required to violate an issue of personal conscience in the performance of public or private service to another.'
If the government recognized this fundamental inalienable right of noble human beings, it would drastically alter the society in which we currently live.
the government would recognize legal gay marriage immediately. |
