"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

--Thomas Jefferson

Safeguarding Civil Liberties

The difference between democracy as we know it and mob rule is the constitution and its principles of limited government. There are some things the government should never be able to do, even if they are momentarily popular.

We strive to protect the rights of the individual as an end unto itself. But in doing so, America has experienced a rich tapestry of unfettered individual ideas unparalleled in human history. By holding the self evident human freedoms to supersede the will of the society or it's leaders, the society as a whole achieves its best destiny. We don't always share the same idea, or even see the value in eachother's endeavors, but in pursuing them anyway we can be assured that the best ideas will be heard.

Our view of our rights shouldn't depend on whim, politics, or circumstance. But in relying on judges to interpret a constitution that was and always will be a work in progress, increasingly we're finding our rights determined by nothing more than who is on our highest courts. Today's celebrated ruling can be undone tomorrow by new judges appointed by an opposing political party.

We must not rest on a supreme court ruling. We must codify explicitly our individual rights as they've evolved in the context of the modern world, and that includes the rights of gays and lesbian couples.

Saafeguarding Gay Marriage

The following is our personal opinion on the issue of gay marriage. We recognize that many people will disagree, but hope that a convention will serve to illuminate the underlying issues and ease some of the contention.

Fundamentally, as long as a person isn't hurting anyone, their individual choices shouldn't be subject to government interference or preference in any way. A person's sexual orientation clearly falls under that umbrella. It doesn't matter if a person's orientation is their choice or if it is predetermined; it is their right.

As such, gay and lesbian couples deserve absolutely identical protections from the government as heterosexual couples. The only issue is whether it is called marriage, or if we call it something else.

Since marriage was originally a religious construct, it is true that the principle of separation of church and state bars the government from defining marriage in a religious sense. However, it equally precludes defining what it isn't. The government cannot prevent any religion from recognizing the marriage, in a religious sense, of any two people, or from performing a ceremony to that effect.

Some people (and therefore, some religions) believe in the sanctified union of a same sex couple. Others don't. It's a personal choice, as it should be. The government has no place in it.

Unfortunately, the issue is clouded somewhat by the historical usage of the word "marriage" in a civic sense, i.e., in the sense that entitles a couple to be legally viewed as married; for example, to file jointly and take a tax deduction, or to own property together. It is simply the case of the same word used in two different contexts, and over the years taking on two entirely different meanings. It is this second, separate, meaning that offers governmental protection, which must be afforded indifferently to all.

For many years the government has granted "marriage" licenses irrespective of the union being recognized by any religion. The government cannot dictate the definition of marriage to religious establishments, but neither can religion dictate the definition to the government. That is separation of church and state. If the state governments had chosen to use a new word other than "marriage" for its purposes, it probably would have saved a whole lot of arguing now. However it was never under any obligation to do so; religion has no higher claim on the English language than the government, and vice-versa.

The third issue at hand is that assigning labels of separation often invites disparity --- we all remember the myth of "separate but equal". So there is little point in admitting that same sex couples must have equal rights but insisting that it be called something different than for heterosexual couples. We can change the word for everyone or change it for no one, and either way it has no bearing on any religion --- any religious institution is still free to recognize or not recognize marital unions as it sees fit.

For the sake of tradition, and so that we don't have to spend a lot of money paying bureaucrats to change almost every form anyone ever has to fill out, we suggest simply keeping the word "marriage" for civic purposes and remember that all religions are free to define the word for their purposes as they see fit.