The North Carolina House and Senate have introduced bills this session seeking once again to put the constitutional rights of citizens on the ballot in November. House Bill H361, Edition 1; and Senate Bill S272, Edition 1, are currently in committee. It is imperative that these bills do not reach the voting public in North Carolina.
MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE, SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY??????????
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “liberty” as, “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice”. [1]
Under any of these definitions, “liberty” is being denied to an entire segment of the population in this state as well as in this country. Those who “choose” to love a member of the same gender have been demonized, discriminated against, and denied the opportunity to have the “positive enjoyment” of one of the most important rights in history: Marriage!
If “marriage” were simply a religious institution, this would not be an issue. Different faiths are free to impose whatever moral restrictions they choose on their congregations and they in turn are free to accept or reject those restrictions. From a psychological and emotional perspective, marriage provides the individuals an opportunity to demonstrate their love for each other by committing themselves to this “special” relationship. In addition, marriage provides the participants in the relationship with a myriad of legal rights and special status, including inheritance and property rights as well as insurance and tax benefits. The so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act seeks to ensure that anyone wishing to marry their partner of the same gender will be DENIED those legal rights.
It would be naïve not to recognize that the majority of people in this county and state support denying legal rights to gay people. However, the true test of “liberty” is whether or not the “majority” seeks to enjoy those rights while denying them to the “minority”. James Madison recognized this threat to liberty in his Federalist Paper #51.
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure… In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights… Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful…[2]
John Stuart Mill also addressed the “tyranny of the majority”:
“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannising [sic] are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.” [3]
The “Defense of Marriage Act” does exactly what James Madison and John Stuart Mill feared in these treatises. By attempting to amend the constitution to DISCRIMINATE against a class of people {the minority} because of the wishes of the fundamental right {the “questionable” majority}, it bodes the “end of a civil society”. It is unfortunate that members of the legislature in this and other states have chosen to dishonor the Constitution and relegate an entire group of people to second class citizenship. The mere fact that these legislatures believe a constitutional amendment is necessary is in itself an acknowledgement that a constitutional right exists which they are now trying to take away.
Slavery, discrimination and segregation represent a tremendous blight upon the great history of this country. Not so long ago, “marriage” between those of different races, particularly black and white, was prohibited by law and this ban was supported by the “Majority”. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court addressed this discrimination and declared such laws unconstitutional:
“We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” [4]
The same can no less be said of restrictions based upon invidious sexual orientation discrimination.
As the United States is engaged in “spreading democracy” throughout the world, the rest of the world is not doubt watching to see how the United States treats its own citizens before determining whether or not it is a form of government that it wishes to embrace or reject.
One final point, for those who cite religious faith as a basis for their position. The words of Jesus provide guidance to anyone objecting on the basis of religion:
37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." 41 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.”[5]
True political courage means that often one must rise up to challenge the “tyranny of the majority” in order to uphold the Constitution, protecting “all” citizens of this country, not just because an elected official took an oath to do so, but because it is the right thing to do!
Please contact your legislator in North Carolina urging them to vote AGAINST the "Defense of Marriage Act".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberty
[2] Madison, J., The Federalist No. 51,The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788
[3] Mill, J.S., On Liberty (1859) [p7],
[4] Loving Et Us., 388 U.S. 1 June 12, 1967, Decided
[5] Luke 6:37-49
