“There’d Be No Red, White, and Blue Without Rainbows” An original Essay on Gay Rights in America

                In light of recent controversies involving same-sex couples’ marriage, gays in the military, and overall acceptance, I feel the need to speak out against restrictions placed on homosexuals. I have but one question for our so-called democracy:

“Why, in our nation of religious freedom, should the government be allowed to mix Our Laws and the Bible?”

I stand at an unbiased point of view, being neither religious nor same-sex orientated. From this vantage point I’ve discovered flaws in our moral codes and legal conduct. The interpretation of the Constitution is outdated. Plain and simple; it’s outdated. At the time the Constitution was written, people were living in fear of government, hardships and God. It was written entirely by middle-aged, white, deeply religious men. Homosexuality was just not talked about. It occurred-it always has, as long as there have been people, there have been those who are attracted to and happier with others of the same sex. All Christian-based religions were accepted, along with Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. Atheism was even accepted. However, when something clashed violently with the normal flow of things (homosexuals, ‘witches’, Satanists, ect.), the beliefs of these people were not taken into consideration because people feared and hated what they couldn’t comprehend. This is largely what happens today.

                So-called ‘pagan’ traditions have large followings today, and aren’t generally thought of as a public menace. People can practice their religion with far less (for there are some people who just will not accept religious diversities) fear of persecution of any kind. Homosexuality can now be talked about casually, and can be seen in public. Being gay doesn’t change the fact that they are human, as are government officials, the deeply religious, and those of neutral standpoints. Marriage is not just a religious promise now. Times have changed since the writing of the Constitution. If atheists are allowed a binding legal contract, as well as a deep expression of love, why not the gay community? It is not the governments’ business whether the married couple is of the same or different sex. Congress should worry less about protesting peoples and more about the general welfare of its gay population.

                As for the anti-gay attitude in the military: We are currently fighting a war in Iraq. Our nation needs all the willing soldiers it can recruit. I’ve heard the ‘no tolerance’ policy is due to some military members being uneasy working with homosexuals. I’ve also heard it is because some worry about attractions forming between co-workers. As to the former, being in the military is about serving your country. Your personal preferences do not matter. For the latter; men and women work side by side now. A gay man and a straight woman are both attracted to men; therefore it’s no different than working alongside a woman.

                If the government cannot accept the homosexual population, it is not doing its job:

“…Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” (Preamble, Constitution of the United States of America).