The Declaration says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
It cannot be argued too strongly that, marriage is certainly, a basic part of life that promotes individual happiness, and we are at liberty to pursue and marry anyone that makes us happy. What heterosexual would tolerate being told, you cannot marry at all, or you cannot marry that person.
The states sole function in any marriage union is to witness the legal contractual aspects of the marriage for the purpose of real property that becomes part of that contract. Their only other restrictions apply the to age, and familial ties (cousins, siblings etc.) Which could also easily apply to homosexual unions. (period) They cannot bar the human rights of an entire class of citizens. It is true that we have both inalienable and unalienable rights which is confusing to us today, but what is not confusing is that the government is instituted to secure our human rights and not to abridge them.
It is indeed ironic that the radical, religious, far right are using--Thomas Jefferson's, an avowed agnostics', original word--INalienable, to prove their point. And once again shines the bright light of hypocrisy on their very UNchristian viewpoints. Ken Starr cannot be allowed to confuse this issue of fundamental Constitutional Human Rights with Civil Rights, and the difference between UNalienable and INalienable.
What's in a word?
The difference between--Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the repression of a whole class of citizens.
1 | 2
