The International Writers Magazine

THE THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS OF A BUDDHIST AMONG BAPTISTS
• Reverend Father Antonio Hernández, O.M.D., A.B.F.
Founder of the Independent Order of American Buddhist Fathers
suriak@yahoo.com

---

A MORE PERFECT UNION: GAY MARRIAGE

Feb 17th 2004 - As same-sex couples rush to marry in San Francisco City-Hall before judgement day - Rev Antonio Hernandez ponders this...

Rapier-quick battles of wit are my usual cup of tea, and I love to hold forth. Not this time. This time I am upset, trembling, burning with rage and fear.
It is utterly incomprehensible to me why such a vast number of Americans would be so prejudiced, so discriminatory, as to deny basic rights to fellow law-abiding citizens. Yet that is precisely what is happening with the present hotbed issue of gay marriage.

There are points to consider: the denial of full and proper rights to gay people is always religion-based. There is no legal reason why the gay community should be targeted for special legislation, and every legal reason against it. Decisions regarding gay issues from a legal perspective must be decided on merits, not on religious whim. Amendments to the Constitution may NOT be made merely to repress a minority group.
Any church has the right to deny gay marriages. That is the individual church's right. So where is the corresponding gay right? For the Rule of Law to make distinctions based on a person's identity is to illegally separate that community of people from the rest of America. It is separated by having a certain Rule of Law applied to it; it certainly is not the same Rule of Law that governs America. So, it's one thing for straights, and something vastly inferior for gays.

We all know, whether we like it or not, that gays are considered second-class citizens because of religious convictions imposed by the state. Ask any legislator what his or her definition of "marriage" is, to prove this assertion. Even the president has stated that marriage is a man/woman union and nothing else. This is not only a topic of civil rights, but of separation of church and state.

Apparently the First Amendment was not intended for gay people! Still there is hope, or there should be: nobody's Bible is the Constitution, this country is not a theocracy, and religious biases cannot be recognized as acceptable launching points for law-making. This is a heartening Truth, and wishing will not make it otherwise.

In fact, arguing against the right to gay marriage is a self-defeating argument: it is a reduction to the absurd. Anti-hate crime laws, though not including the gay community in their general language, extend automatically to gay people. That is proof in itself that prohibiting gay marriage is a Constitutional violation. In that light, doesn't prohibition of gay marriage look like a hate crime? Because that's all it is.

Another heartening thought: the desires of the majority don't always jibe with the law. The decision about gay marriages must be left entirely to legislators with purely Constitutional and civil liberties expertise. Any law-making has to be kept strictly away from religious interest groups. Votes and polls are a horrible venue, because of the fact that gays are a per capita minority. Even with staunch support, a pro-gay marriage "vote" on a grassroots level could never succeed-- and homophobes in the government know this.
It seems there is a willingness to roll over, to recognize a gay "civil union" (whatever the hell that is), but not marriage. Doesn't anyone see the writing on the wall? The homophobes in the government know that what they are doing is wrong. Otherwise why bother to throw an insulting bone of contention like "civil unions"? And this is only a preamble to the new amendment arguments flying around the country now.

If there be any new amendment to our Constitution, let it be a comprehensive, final word on hate crime and discrimination. Let it mention gays in the same breath with all other minorities. Let it be a clear, incisive bundling together of the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments. There is no rule of law that condemns the existence, or abridges the rights, of any law-abiding citizens-- nor can there ever be. Even then, black citizens, for example, had to fight all the way through to the 1980s and beyond. Discussing Constitutional amendments that have to do with robbing people of their rights is something I always imagined only Communists and fascists did. Boy, was I mistaken. Or was I?

Ponder this issue carefully. Each of you knows a gay person. Almost everyone has a gay person in the family. Many people have gay friends. Do you really see any reason whatsoever to treat the gay community as a criminal community? What have WE ever done to you? If nothing is done to protect the downtrodden now, what will prevent any group from being picked as the next target? If we allow this kind of point-blank shooting at the Constitution, what's to stop its total destruction?
© Rev Antonio Hernandez. Feb 17th 2004

(Ps: It's legal in Canada - Vancouver is very pretty this time of year Ed.)

Buy Rev Harnandez book on Tourettes Syndrome and Autism

Home

© Hackwriters 2000-2004 all rights reserved