The Issue of Gay Marriage(This appeared as a Letter to the Editor in "The Dispatch", a newspaper in Davidson County).

This letter is written in consideration of the attempt by constituents in Thomasville to support the movement to redefine the North Carolina Constitution to define marriage as a union specifically between a woman and a man.

It is true the democracy is one of the founding principles of our collective government. When an assembly of citizens gather to vote on an issue, it is the general agreement that the majority will rule.

However, another founding principle of our government is the right of every individual to privacy and protection of property. This is to prevent the threat of the so-called "tyranny of the majority". There are certain issues and rights which are protected, and thus no legitimate vote can be made to have these rights taken away from any citizen, or in a philosophical sense, any human being.

Another principle of our government is the separation of religion from the public sphere of society, meaning the government. While religion may be the business of regimes in countries like Iran, it should be of no consequence within our government. This protects us from the tyranny of a church, no matter what creed it may follow. It also protects us from the tyranny of one church over another, so we do not have to live in a society plagued by religious wars of supremacy, such as in Iraq. The government is meant to protect the rights and property of the individual. Thus, within the private sphere, which encompasses everything else, all is permissible as long as it does not violate the right to privacy or property of another citizen. Other matters are not open to change, you cannot vote away your rights, and you cannot vote away the rights of another citizen.

Homosexual individuals who are citizens of this country have the same rights as the rest of us. This includes the right to happiness and liberty. Allowing homosexuals to marry before the state does not have a negative or legitimately unlawful effect on the property of any individual. Thus, homosexual couples have the right to have their union recognized by the state, if the state chooses to recognize as well the state of union between a man and a woman.

The churches who do not agree with this are protected by our government as well. The state cannot force these churches who do not wish to marry these couples to do so. The church has no bearing in the public sphere and the state has no business in the sphere of the church. Any individual who asserts the supremacy of their church doctrine over the state is violating the social agreement he or she consented to explicitly or tacitly, and thus is not entitled to protection of their person and property by the state. The only thing at hand is the protection of liberty and property.

Some might suggest the following: that if homosexual marriage is allowed, then there would be nothing to stop polygamy or other forms of objectionable union; that it would destroy the American family; that it goes against what is natural; that it is against the Bible.

I answer that while homosexual marriage does not violate the rights of the individual, these other forms of marriage would do so. Polygamy is known to often be a forced process, and so must be outlawed for the protection of the individual. Also, that there is no evidence suggesting that the American family would be harmed by this, if anything it would help our staggering divorce rate. Finally, evidence of homosexuality as a natural phenomena are abundant, and once again Religion has no bearing in public discourse.

It is clear then that what the constituents of Thomasville, and others throughout the country are trying to accomplish is immoral and incompatible with the founding principles of our government. Should we wish to hold to these principles, these referendums must be dismissed. It is acceptable and required that one tolerate the opinions of a fellow citizen as long as they do not violate the rights of another citizen. But, if citizens attempt to impose a morality that is clearly against what is accepted in government, then other citizens have the right to ignore the decision.

The want of Homosexuals to marry can only be defeated by force, and to use force in this case is wrong. To attempt to force these individuals to do this is clearly violating their rights. They, on the other hand, only wish for citizens to respect the rights which they are already entitled to have. The many attempts of individuals to impose this immoral morality upon our fellow citizens is, upon close inspection, unacceptable and bound to failure.

I will not include my views as to if it is right or wrong in my eyes for homosexuals to marry. I can only say that as one who respects what began in 1776, that while I may attempt to persuade others to alter their views, that I could not respect myself for denying them the freedom allowed to me.