Back to Quack Off
Anti-gay Marriage: The State vs. The Individual
If the Idaho Legislature enacts a constitutional amendment to ban civil
unions and gay marriages, it will have ridiculously enacted a law to repeal
its own existence.
The real issue concerning the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to the Idaho
Constitution is not about same sex marriage; this issue is about the
individual’s right of voluntary association – at a religious level AND civil
ridiculous as it may seem biologically for same sex marriages, we must
remember that Darwin did not write the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I may not agree with the actions of individuals participating in same sex
marriages, but I will fight for their freedom of voluntary association and
right to choose.
Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, if passed, would set a dangerous legal
precedent. The same philosophical reasons to ban voluntary gay marriages
will be the same philosophical reasons to deny ALL other voluntary
associations, and thus our basic freedoms. Our freedoms and morality do not
emanate from the state legislature. They are a gift from God, not the
Individuals are born with rights to freedom of speech, freedom of movement,
freedom of religion, and freedom of voluntary association. These freedoms
form the basis for all of our other freedoms: freedom of trade, freedom to
exchange ideas, commodities and services, and freedom to enter into
voluntary contracts of marriage or any other union – religious and civil –
as long as they don’t infringe upon those same rights of other individuals.
ironic that the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment seeks to define and ban
voluntary associations between consenting adults. Antecedent to the Idaho
Constitution is the God-given right of individuals to freely associate.
With that God-given right, individuals can choose to associate and form a
government. That government cannot then prohibit individuals from voluntary
association. What a contradiction. The very legislative body created by
voluntary association -- the state legislature -- is being used in an
attempt to deny individual freedom and voluntary association of others.
deny freedom of individual association is to deny the very premise for the
existence of a freely created government in the first place!
Collective institutions have no rights. Only individuals have rights.
Individuals cannot grant to government those rights that they did not
originally obtain from God, or Nature. Individuals do not have the right to
infringe upon or limit other individuals’ rights of voluntary association.
Therefore, a collective of individual legislators do not have the right to
limit other individuals’ same rights of voluntary association. We have a
Bill of Rights to prohibit such government infringements.
Bill of Rights does not grant freedoms; the Bill of Rights is a document
that prohibits infringements of our God-given rights, a priori to the
establishment of a government. Hence we have a limited constitutional
republic, not a strict democracy, and certainly not a theocracy.
can individuals extend their particular moral values to a government body in
an attempt to govern the morals of their neighbors. In the same manner that
you do not have the right to tell your neighbor what to eat, what to drink,
what to smoke, which church to attend, or how to participate in consenting
adult sex, you do not have the right to grant that action to a government.
Mob rule by the state does not supersede individual rights obtained from God
or a Universal Force.
This issue is not about same sex marriage; this issue is about individual
rights vs. tyranny by the majority.
back to top...