.

On Liberty, Tea Parties, and Gay Marriage

Are you for liberty? Then you ought to be for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Last week the Minnesota legislature approved putting a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage on the 2012 ballot.  The vote in both houses was almost entirely down party lines with Republicans voting for it and Democrats against.  Current Minnesota law does not recognize same-sex marriages.  The constitutional amendment would prevent state courts from ruling that law unconstitutional.

This issue isn’t about what you or I may think about same-sex marriages on a moral or religious basis.  It’s about liberty and it’s about tolerance.  President Kennedy said, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”  In other words, you can be opposed to gay marriages, biracial marriages, mixed-religion marriages – whatever you want to be against, but that’s separate from preventing someone else from living according to their understanding of right or wrong.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, liberty means “the quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases; the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power of choice.”  That’s the heart of the same-sex marriage issue.  It’s the freedom of a same-sex couple to enjoy the same rights and privileges as mixed-sex couples.

With all the Tea Party pronouncements of their fight for liberty (at least half of the Tea Party groups listed on the web have “liberty” somehow incorporated into their name), you’d expect them to be all for the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  But they’re not.  For Tea Partiers, liberty apparently only applies to other Tea Partiers.  That's not liberty.  It's self-interest.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."  It’s the best rule of thumb I know of for evaluating questions of liberty.  By that standard, there is no basis whatsoever for preventing gay marriages.

I hope that Minnesotans will recognize the proposed constitutional amendment for what it is – a direct attack on liberty – and will vote “no” in 2012.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Randall Johnson June 06, 2011 at 02:59 AM
Agreed, and I will vote "no."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »