There is a lot of talk out there about what freedom is and what it is to live in a free society. Allow me to paraphrase a former Canadian prime minister on the subject.
She suggested that if one can go throughout an entire day without seeing or experiencing something that offended you, then you don't live in a free society.
I found that to be about the best definition of a free society i had heard in a long time. Certainly, it was the most concise. It is true. We see things everyday that offend us on some grounds. Whether it be political, religious or whatever, I can look out the door right now and find something that I would take issue with.
But the prime minister was right. Those are indeed measures of our own freedom. While we all bask in our own glory and remind ourselves constantly about how good and decent we are as people, we forget that everything we say or do can be viewed from a variety of different perspectives.
Our country was built on several notions. One of which was the idea that the minority was not the whipping boy of the majority. That having 51% was not cause to crush the opposition. That it was not only wrong for the majority to be the tyrant of the minority, the majority is to be the protetor of the minority. This seems to have changed in some folks minds in the last years.
In some cases, we are still quite good in respecting minority rights. And in some cases, like when people object to Santa or a non religious christmas symbol anywhere near a goverment building, small minorities do cause more trouble than do anybody any good. Indeed, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should.
Certain southern states have refused to take the confederate battle flags off of state and goverment buildings despite huge protests. They ignore the now majorities in most states to remove it, wrapping themselves up in some faux - redneck heritage arguement when everyone else only sees slavery or treason.
Yet, when it comes to gay marriage, protecting anyone's rights seems to go out the window with the "keep marriage sacred" crowd. They all point directly to their beliefs, religious ones, that supposedly forbid same sex marriages. Then, they want to transfer that religious belief to a "constitutional ammendment" banning gays from ever enjoying any 1st class citizen rights. they blame "activist judges" which is really just a term for demonizing any judge who disagrees with you.
But these so called activists on the bench are simply doing what the judiciary should do. Judges don't make rulings on popular opinions. At least they are not supposed to. but what the president and his supporters are demanding of the judiciary is just that. They want judges to do what they want them to do, and they use opinion polls to somehow justify why judges should be ruling different than the way they are, interpreting the constitution.
But judges don't answer to people in that respect. The majority matters not in their decision. That's why they are not elected. Being a judge isn't a popularity contest.
I am personally one of those people who aren't quite ready for gay marriage, at least on some levels. I whole heartedly agree with their desire to enjoy the rights and priveledges of marriage. I have personally seen too many scenarios where rights or priveledges were denied because it was Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve instead of Adam and Eve standing there.
But I, like many, still get the "willys" when I see 2 guys kissing. I look down the road, and where I don't see expansion into polygamy and beastiality like some folks see, I do see a confusing society, one when someone says they are going to a wedding, someone else asks what gender are the participants. But all in all, I could probably deal with that. And I would prospect that certain parts of our society will make sure no one ever confuses their straight marriage with an unholy gay one.
But when I think of that prime minister's statement, and relate it to this issue, it makes sense. I can deal with 2 guys shacking up. And like many healthy red blooded american males, I would even enjoy some lesbian ceremonies...especially if it was Jenna Jameson and another hot porn actress tying the knot (sic).
It's funny. When I was young, we were always taught that one of the "evil" things about all homosexuals was that they were all permiscuous and jumped from bed to bed. They had no interest in forming "real, meaningful relationships" like straight people do. Now, that they want to get married because they do have actual meaninful relationships like straight people, some are so offended by it that they want to use their majority rule to ensure that no gay guy can ever get health insurance for his partner and so forth...
Let's face it. Some people just don't want them to exist and would want to deny them any right they could. There are some who are somehow resentful that they have been able to exist till now. This is just hate that can keep us from going forward.
Years ago, it was illegal for a white person to marry interracially in many states. It wasn't until the courts went against the majority that those individuals rights were protected from the tyranny and predjudices of the majority. When segregation was the rule of the day, it was the activist judges who opened the school doors and forced the backwards thinking population to lose their hatred, or at least not act upon it.
The courts have been a champion of the underdog throughout our history. They made unions possible and for millions of americans to find a better life for themselves with protection against poor working conditions and pay standards. They have saved millions of women from having non licensed hacks abort babies and kill mothers sometimes in the back alleys of our country. Even if I personally disagree with abortion on a personal, moral level, if someone else who has the same rights as I disagrees, i want that procedure to be safe and regulated for them. God will judge the action. It isn't my job.
And as far as gay marriage and religion goes...that's their business. If a church doesn't want to do a ceremony, it's their perogative. But marriage is a civil contract in this context, not a religious matter.