It’s time for me to stand up for what I believe are core values of our culture. You are free to disagree.
I firmly believe that I have no more right to dictate your personal relationships than you have to dictate mine. I think that marriage is a legal civil contract between two consenting adults and is a civil liberty for all. I believe that religious weddings should be restricted based on their religion, but this in no way changes or restricts the underlying civil contract of “marriage” in our culture. I believe that my rights do not end where your rights begin and your rights do not end where my rights begin, our rights coexist and are equivalent. You are welcome to your opinions and beliefs but that doesn’t give you the right to discriminate against me or infringe/suppress my rights; similarly, I am welcome to my opinions and beliefs but that does not give me the right to discriminate against you or infringe/suppress your rights.
Marriage is not some kind of legal license to perform sex acts on your spouse, marriage has nothing to do with sex, sex is simply part of some relationships. Marriage is the public proclamation of an existing relationship between two consenting adult individuals. In our culture, marriage is a binding civil contract between two people that intend to legally share their life with each other and that contract is subject to State and Federal laws that regulate contracts. Marriage is not currently part of the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution does not guarantee the “right” to marry nor does the Constitution deny the “right” to marry, the only way marriage is currently related to the Constitution is contracts and civil liberties.
I’ve been reading a lot of hysteria* from people regarding marriage, here is just one example, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way there is going to be real equality in regards to marriage is for there to be an amendment to the United States Constitution that specifically enumerates marriage as a “right”; therefore, I propose the following amendment to the United States Constitution…
The rights of two consenting adults to enter into the civil contract of marriage shall not be infringed. All marriages protected under this amendment shall be treated with complete equality under the law.
…there, that should solve the marriage issue until future braindead lunatics completely abolish the United States Constitution.
I’m open to revising the wording of my proposed amendment as long as it doesn’t change the intent.
[Edit 7/20/2022: Added all of the following for clarification.]
*Hysteria: exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people.
The exaggerated, uncontrollable emotion and excitement is emanating from those that have freaked out about something that has not happened! Their freak outs are the results of unsupportable extrapolated predictions that are literally “stoking unfounded fear” that something might happen not that something will happen. This is delusional thinking, as in holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.
5 thoughts on “I Propose An Amendment To The United States Constitution [Edited]”
I wonder; after reading a comment posted by dekerivers on JULY 19, 2022 AT 1:31 PM where he wrote “I agree with the post by Steve Witherspoon, and the sentiments expressed, regarding marriage.”, “his libertarian view about inclusion and acceptance of gay marriage is spot-on.” I wonder if dekrivers has finally realized after me telling him the same thing over and over again that I mean what I say and I stand up for what I believe. I’ve shared my opinion about marriage over and over again with him and his clouded vision hasn’t truly allowed him to understand what I’ve told him, does he finally get it?
dekerivers wrote, “I take exception to the term “hysteria” to describe those who now express deep concern about the words, actions, and tone of the present Court in relation to privacy and Thomas’ concurring opinion on same-sex marriage…”
Yes dekerivers, hysteria IS the correct word to use and I specifically explained why in an edit above; so, since you’ve banned me from commenting on your blog, if you don’t think it’s the right word then be true man of integrity and come here, where I wrote it, and explain to me why it’s incorrect; I haven’t banned you on my blog.
I also believe that my right to marry is the business between me and the person(s) I may wish to marry and their wish to marry me. My disagreement is simply the right to enter a civil contract should not limit the voluntary entrants of that contract to the number two. However that is the position I personally took, I would not impose that same limit to others.
I really hadn’t thought about that at all when I wrote this blog post and I think you are the first person I have ever run into that would approve of polygamy and polyandry not being illegal. Personally I think anyone that would want more than one spouse is out of their damn mind but being illegal does raise constitutional issues as you point out.
I also (with 40 years of marriage) cannot conceive of disappointing another person who elected to spend their life with me, That said, I was speaking to the rights of equal persons not being bothered by arbitrary laws or regulations imposed by others.
mrtomsr wrote, “I was speaking to the rights of equal persons not being bothered by arbitrary laws or regulations imposed by others.”
Yup, I got that.
Seriously, bringing polygamy and polyandry into the discussion was an interesting perspective that I hadn’t thought of and that piece of Libertarian that resides in me tends to agree with you. I too chose monogamy and I too “would not impose that same limit to others”.