Bad Day for Civil Rights in This Country

This morning Carter Bundy said that he could not support enhanced sentencing from hate crimes because it limited freedom of speech. Later today California’s State Supreme Court upheld the state’s gay-marriage ban but said that 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place prior to the passage of the law were not affected since it was not retroactive.

I once had a friend that was shot in the leg while going home from a bar because he was gay. He and his partner had been together for many years and he was a good person that treated his friends both straight and gay with the same kindness. The fear and hate of anyone who is different has always been a problem in this country. When someone directs that anger at a group of people just because they are different no matter the reason then surely they must be punished so as others are not encouraged to treat people in the same manner. I understand that Carter is speaking for freedom of speech which is a constitutional right but when someone harms another person through their hate speech then they should be held responsible for the results. I think that any fair minded judge or jury can understand the different between “freedom of speech” the right to freely express ones options no matter how hateful and “hate speech” which is used to encourage and incite either a mob or an individual to cause grave bodily harm to a certain person or group of individuals. Hate speech cannot be encouraged if we are to live in a civilized society.

As for the law that banned gay marriage in California the California State Supreme Court was forced to rule the way they did because they were only allowed to view the law as either constitutional or unconstitutional as it related to the California State Constitution. This ruling does not reflect the personal feeling or views of the Justices on the California State Supreme Court but only reflects the strict interpretation of the law as it relates to the state constitution.

I still think that the basic question was wrongly put to the court it should have been is it constitutional to restrict the religious practice of any church. Marriage is a religious institution between two individuals. In my church it is between a man and a woman but not all churches see it as such. The problem is that due to the financial issues marriage has been taken over by the state and now some states are trying to enforce religious views of a limited number of religious organizations on all Americans. If this does not violate our federal constitution, Amendment I, then I don’t know what will.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

It should be left up to each church as to whether or not they are willing to perform a marriage for any individual in this country and the state should have no say in the matter period. The license provided by a state should only be to legally recognize what the church or an authorized individual has already performed and nothing more.