History in the Making

I watched history on Thursday, and I’m watching it again today.  This is a rare opportunity, or at least it is rare to know at the time that one is observing history.  It is rare, and I am honored.  The Minnesota State Legislature has been debating a law which will extend the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage to all consenting adults regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of the gender they love. 

Make no mistake: this is a huge, redefining moment.  As a state, we are redefining the institution of marriage to be inclusive and gender-neutral.  But make no mistake about it; we aren’t changing a definition that has been in existence for millennia, as many would have you believe.  As a society, both State and Nation, we have redefined marriage a number of times, and we’ve redefined the rights and privileges and responsibilities of marriage countless times.  And this has been within the span of just under 240 years.  Polygamy was at one time legal.  It was illegal, at one point in time, to marry a person of a different race.  At one point in time, women were considered property of their husbands under marital law. 

We have been refining and redefining marriage as a country and as a state for quite some time now.  Extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples is just the latest step in refining our laws to recognize the humanity and liberties of all people.

I’m clearly for the legislation before our representatives, but I also understand how controversial this bill is given the social climate of our time, so I’ve tried to listen intently to arguments against allowing same-sex couples the privileges I’m afforded as a heterosexual.  There are dozens of arguments that I’ve heard ranging from “it’s not discrimination” to “it’s icky” to “it threatens the institution of marriage and the foundations of our society.”  The most common argument I’ve heard, though, is that the majority of Minnesotans don’t want it. 

Even though most polls tell us this just isn’t true, let’s assume for a minute that it is; let’s assume that 60% of the public is against same-sex marriage, against marriage equality.  Our country, and by association our state, was founded on a number of principles, none greater than the principle the majority does not have the right to infringe on the liberties of the minority.  I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve studied history (which is one of the reasons I know I’m watching it now).  After the Revolutionary War, but before we ratified our constitution, there was much debate about how we should form our nation, what rights we should give to the state and to the union, how we should protect the ideals we laid out in our Declaration to the British.  There were a few of our founders who articulated the argument for our Democratic Republic in something called the Federalist Papers, arguing in favor of the constitution as we know it today.

They wrote 85 essays outlining everything from the number of representatives to how the navy can defend against foreign intrusion.  Federalist Paper #10, authored by James Madison, speaks directly to the principle that factions of our society shouldn’t be allowed to control our government.   He defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”  Madison warns against any faction, but especially “when a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government… enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” 

Our country was founded on the principle that no majority, be it religious or political, should not be able to infringe on the liberties of any single citizen.  We live this when we defend the rights of our citizens to speak what is in their hearts, to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choosing.  It is embodied when we allow the smallest of minorities to propagate their ideas; even when they seem as hideous as racism.  The fact that I don’t agree with a neo-nazi or an atheist or a vegan should have no bearing on their freedom to be who they are and to pursue their version of happiness.  The argument that the majority of Minnesotans don’t support the rights of all citizens to marry is patently Un-American.  It is unpatriotic. 

I’m a Patriot.  I believe that we are ALL created equal, and that we ALL deserve equal protections and rights under law.

The vote is coming up within hours.  I’m watching history.  I’m hoping I see love and freedom prevail.