What Ignoring DOMA Means

This is not something that comes lightly in America. We, a country declared free by defense of natural rights among which resides “Pursuit of Happiness”, continue to struggle with the basic right of adults choosing paths that harm no one else in their personal pursuit.

There are many things to say, but this is a time to say “Enough!” about how the whole fabric of mankind will fall if the government gets out of the business of social fiat with respect to those in the age of majority who are harming, if anyone, themselves only. Mr. Obama, regardless of whether you agree with him is clearly a brilliant tactician. He capitalized on the recent infighting among the right best demonstrated here Reason “Defense” of CPAC by taking this stance In Turnabout, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights and electing, as presidents have and will, to not enforce something he and his legal team believe is unconstitutional. Will we continue infighting, or get on with governing?

The arguments for supporting homosexual marriage, at a governmental level, are simple

1-accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin. Isn’t the history of government regulating morality awful? Alcohol Prohibition failed miserably. Gambling Prohibition failed miserably and more and more states recognize these social issues are better solved by churches, and other organizations who can provide direct support.

2-accept for a moment that homosexuality is not a sin, and is simply a choice. Didn’t our founding fathers fight a war for freedom nigh on 250 years? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness – inalienable rights. Inalienable, and yet we continue to want to separate those in the age of majority from those rights.

3-accept for a moment that homosexuality is innate and neither a sin or choice. What is more basic than being able to marry at the age of consent whom you choose based on that heterosexual or homosexual disposition? Many heterosexuals marry not to have children but for regular sex and companionship.

Marriage for all the other arguments surrounding it, is, at a governmental level a contract between adults. From a governmental standpoint, marriage has not always been, and in parts of the world still is not a marriage between one man and one woman. Thus defense of such is defense of farce.

The issues of morality are better served in churches and other spiritual venues than through government. Whether the founding fathers saw this day and accepted homosexuality or not is irrelevant, since like us they were not monolithic in thought. We can’t even agree if the age of consent is the age of majority or earlier. Vocal or not, like abolitionists, it is probable that one or more founder envisioned this day. To deny this is to deny us. If they were a monolith the Articles would have stood and the Constitution wouldn’t exist. If a monolith the war of separation never would have occurred. Like then this is a great day for freedom.