Gay marriage bans are popping up all over the country. That solution is upside down.
Did you know there is no such thing as a male or a female tomato? The boring plants pollinate all alone.
Did you know there is such a thing as a male and a female Sago Palm? (Well its not actually a palm tree, its really a cousin of the good ol' Christmas tree, it just looks like a palm, but male and female Sago Palms are different nonetheless. Two males cannot make a Sago, neither can two females. It takes two Palms to pollinate.
Humans, on the other hand do not seem to care about what gender they might be. The notion that the differences of gender are for the purpose of pollination (or procreation, as it were) is foreign to the notion that the act of reaching such procreation is paramount to the goal it creates. It is no longer about the differences it is about the perception.
This has infuriated conservative and religious traditionalists to no end. Their anger is based on stopping the perceived misinterpretation of marriage. So their solution is to ban any marriage that is not between a man and a woman.
That is simply ridiculous.
There are true sound reasons for the perception of gender irrelevance. It is not a 'condition' that just pops up one day and all of a sudden causes the brain that is perceiving reality to tilt and turn the other direction. There is a cause for everything.
I will not bore the reader here with rehashing discussion far more technical than necessary so I will only suggest that a quick click will lead one to the details. (I do not take payment for anything scientific I have written, so it cannot be a pitch: get a free copy of Modern Mysticism, or read it online at as Chapter 19: 'The Politics of Brain Function'.
The topic of this argument is first, whether there is a sound reason to actually make law regarding marriage, and second, whether the manner in which that topic is being addressed is the right one. Well, I guess the latter gives away my opinion on the subject, but humor me anyway.
Many well meaning people are pushing prohibition. It didn't work for alcohol, what makes one think it will work for marriage?
Marriage should be a right. A person should have a right to enter into a contract of marriage and that right should be specifically expressed for the good of society, not specifically restricted for the misguided intent of correcting a perception.
Marriage is actually a license to engage in a contract between two consenting persons. Marriage is licensed by government and government can set requirements to attain such a license but government should not be permitted to prohibit such a license without good cause. That is regulation and enforcement of a license granted by official authority. It is the thing organized societies are made of.
I would propose an amendment to the United States Constitution granting yet another of those inalienable rights: the right to marry.
I would define the parties to the right to marry, not by their association with another party, but by their individual right to marry and I would further clarify that right as to any person of the opposite gender.
Such a right guaranteed to each citizen in the Constitution would not preclude the States from passing their own civil union laws. It would just prohibit government from infringing upon the right of the individual to marry a person of the opposite gender.
Why gender and not the current catch-phrase, "man and a woman"?
The 'male', (is going first because I 'are' one) is a specific genetic code. The 'female' is a specific genetic code. There is no argument over what 'gender' a person is by the code they carry. Identification therefore, is simple. In fact it is so simple you can have your gender determined by a DNA test before you are even born and that is just in using the mother's blood, and the subject of another essay, someday.
What is not simple is the perception a person has of their own 'sexuality'. Sexuality is a nice term created to denote what a person 'thinks' they are. I hate to break the news to anyone but if you carry the DNA of a male and you think you are a female, you need help in sorting that factual problem out. The same goes for a female who carries the DNA of a female but thinks they are a male. It is just not possible to be real.
Humans are not their 'sexuality'. Humans are not what we 'think' we are. We 'are' what we are born as (and we are that ‘thing' real early in gestation) and that is it.
It never ceases to amaze me that nearly the same people who argue for a random evolution theory cannot see the ridiculousness of their grasping the self-deception of changing biology, by simply imposing a thought upon it. Yet there is that problem today and it has to be dealt with in an orderly and logical process that does not deny rights to anyone.
That can only be handled properly by granting rights to everyone. But those rights are INDIVIDUAL. There is no right of a couple in the Constitution. There is no right of a mob in the Constitution. There is no right of a nation. There are INDIVIDUAL rights. Our Constitution is based in INDIVIDUAL Freedoms, not partnership arrangements.
The solution to the marriage amendment issue is to call for, (so let's say I'm doing that here, for what good it will do) a Constitutional Amendment to ADD the civil right of marriage to each INDIVIDUAL citizen.
You have the right to marry any person of the opposite gender of your choice. NO person or government or agency or institution or club or organization or back room, smoke filled parlor can take it away from you. You may not be infringed upon in your right to marry any person of the opposite gender. You have the right to marry. Individually.
End of marriage problem: if anyone pays attention and actually cares about securing and protecting the rights of Americans and lays down the silly political point making one-upmanship long enough to actually do the right thing. For once.