Is anti-homosexual legislation un-American?

[blackmonkeystatue]

Does anti-homosexual legislation fly in the face of the Declaration of Independence?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I was watching a documentary on Benjamin Franklin and this came to mind. Thomas Jefferson wrote the draft of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams revised it. One of the changes that Franklin made was changing 'we hold these truths to be sacred' to 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. Benjamin Franklin proposed the seperation of church and state and this was one of his ways of ensuring that. He chose to change 'sacred' to 'self-evident' to demonstrate that these principles are in accordince with the wants of the people and with reason, not by some higher power, be it god or a dictator. The strongest arguments against homosexuality, including the president's, have to do with god and religion, homosexuality being immoral and against god's will, that marriage is "sacred", or holy...again, set forth in such a way by god. Now, if a law to outlaw homosexuality (marriage or whatever) were passed for religious reasons (and how could it be passed for anything else?), wouldn't this go directly against the logic of that like in the Declaration of Independence: 'we hold these truths to be self-evident (not sacred)' ?

Just wondering what you guys think about that. I'm not too into the political scene, so I don't know if anti-homosexual legislation is actually a possibility or not, I just know that I've heard things about it.

 

[vslayer]

anti homosexual legislation?? never heard of it, last time i checked they were arguing over civil unions

 

[Athelwulf]

Does anti-homosexual legislation fly in the face of the Declaration of Independence?

[Thread=42317]No it does not![/Thread]

Blackmonkeystatue, I totally agree with yer entire post. Ya drive the point home about the separation of Church and State and gay mariage.

 

[isis25]

i think that separation of church and state is critical for the american people's safety. it seems like the label "evangelical christian" has become code for "republican biggot." i have seen television programs and countless articles covering the newly revived political weight of the christian community and i think that all the indicators point to our current president. when america elected an openly religious man into office, america signed on for the marriage of church and state. now we are fighting for things like stem cell research and the right for two people to share a normally functioning family.

 

[Mystech]

anti homosexual legislation?? never heard of it, last time i checked they were arguing over civil unions

Then you've clearly not been listening.

blackmonkeystatue, I'd say you've hit onto a pretty valid point, our founding fathers intended to create a secular body to govern over people regardless of their faith, and generally give everyone a fair shake. We've certainly had trouble sticking to that sort of ideal in the past, but we've made large strides forward, and really getting rid of legislation which specifically targets homosexuals would be another step in the right direction.

It is a bit of a shame that the declaration of independence, though largely seen as the foundation for the principals on which America is built, hasn’t got any real legal weight.

 

[phlogistician]

Any law passed to 'protect' an intangible, such as the concept of marriage, is deeply flawed. Marriage is one word for two people having a legal or religious binding. Civil Union is another. Bush et al draw this debate onto the subject of 'marriage' when what it is really about, is legally recognised civil union, and equal rights. Allegedly, America was founded on the principles of America existing for it's people. That means all of them, homosexuals included.

Same sex unions will be legally recognised in the UK very soon. About time the USA caught up.

 

[Mystech]

Allegedly, America was founded on the principles of America existing for it's people. That means all of them, homosexuals included.

Well said, I know it's a point of disappointment among many Americans that we've had so many problems realizing this fact through out our history (replacing homosexuals with blacks/women etc). It's sad that many still think that our Democracy is set up specifically so that the majority (Read straight white Christians) can get their way and trample all over everyone else that they don't particularly appreciate.

 

[Tiassa]

When the reasons behind the anti-homosexual legislation have nothing whatsoever to do with an assertion of higher law than the U.S. Constitution, I will accept that the homophobes and traditionalists are not un-American. However, few things strike me as being even comparatively as un-American as attempting to usurp the Constitution in order to deny rights.

Take our President, for instance. Sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution, he doesn't want to do that until it's changed to eliminate equal protection under the law. President Bush seems to feel that he should pick and choose which parts of the Constitution warrant protection and preservation.

Given that asking for honesty from politicians is considered un-American, and that conservatives asserted that truth is un-American, if I don't call President Bush un-American, it's only because the term doesn't treat him severely enough.

In the meantime, why do the homophobes find the Constitution so despicable? I mean, they have the right to free speech. It would be helpful if they would use that right on occasion in order to fill us in on certain details: Why do the traditionalists and homophobes find the notion that people deserve to be treated equally under the law repugnant?

In Oregon, throughout the 1990s, homophobes asked voters to reject the First, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments at least. The Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Article Four, are taking heat in the current push joined/led by the Bush Administration; coincidentally, the administration entered the fray the same day (at the same press conference) that the President admitted responsibility for the yellowcake lie. (Guess what was the headline the next morning? Liberal media conspiracy, my ass.)

But after a decade of watching the Bible used as a weapon against the Constitution, after listening to so many people reject the Supreme Law of the Land in favor of the supreme law of their religious conscience, what, really, should we call the traditionalists, if not un-American?

Ah, wait ... I know. Anti-American.