The American Boundary: Where Must We Stop?

The question is not ours alone. Each generation of Americans must grapple with the role of government. Where do the collective purposes and entitlements of government stop? Conversely, where do the individual purposes and entitlements of the citizen begin?
Conservatives and Liberals have long argued over “big” and “small” government. Recently, Barack Obama declared that what Americans needed was not bigger or smaller government, but smarter government. But what is smarter? Are the victimless pleasures (homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) of the individual worth less than the tradition-based morality of the community? Does the community have an obligation to be consistent in its distribution and protection of rights?
We protect the right of the alcoholic to feed and perpetuate her addiction, even at the expense of her children’s well-being, but we criminalize even moderate and minimal use of marijuana. We permit heterosexuals to marry and have children though they may be poor, obese, criminals, alcoholics, abusive, handicap, interracial, elderly, etc. Yet we do not extend to homosexuals the rights protected for every other class of American. What is the reasoning? Why is one allowed and the other not?
The only answer is religion. Religious morality has long been the most effective way to dehumanize and subjugate any given group of humans for a shared characteristic. When there is no reason for a distinction between people, religion swoops in and saves the day for those needing to maintain their superiority. This dehumanization and subjugation were felt tremendously by the founding fathers and mothers. They knew exactly what it meant to be denied basic human rights. They formed our government in an effort to make the first place in the world where citizens could pursue happiness free from the shackles of religious dogma, tradition and ideology.
Presently, religious extremists and misguided moderates have molded government into an extension of the church with regard to homosexuality. The government enforces and funds a religious morality that dismisses and marginalizes homosexuals. Our founders recognized this intrusive use of government. They knew the answer to the question "Where must we stop?": Religion. It is the American Boundary.
To maintain this boundary, we must recognize the intrusion of religion and tradition. Preventing that intrusion is the only way to protect the citizen while also protecting the citizenry. Where religious morality restricts the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, we have violated the American Boundary. Where the government allows religious morality, even the majority's, to restrict the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, especially a minority, the government has failed. The majority has no special claim to religious superiority. Their religious morality is protected from government intrusion in their homes, churches and personal lives. But so is the minority’s. We must not allow legislation to be rooted in scripture and religious tenants. Such a disallowment facilitates the domestic tranquility so important to our prosperity. Protecting domestic tranquility means protecting the American Boundary.
There are those who disagree that legislation should not be guided by scripture or religious tenants. But what are their political opinions more broadly than gay marriage? What are their opinions on interracial marriage, slavery, poverty, etc.? A range of political issues are addressed in the bible. Does the anti-gay Christian or Muslim believe that all the tenants of scripture should be legislated? If not, which ones shouldn’t and why? What method do they use to discern which tenants should be legislated and which should not? What are their reasons for legislating this verse of scripture and not this other? Is there a predictable and consistent system to their legislative biblical interpretation, or is their system unpredictable and inconsistent? I think we will find that for people who advocate the legislating of scriptural verse and tenants, their system must by definition be both unpredictable and inconsistent.
But, as we have loved to proclaim, this is America; and a legal system that uses unpredictable and inconsistent interpretations of religion to distribute and protect the rights of its citizens is exactly what the founders were trying to escape. It’s exactly what they were protecting us from when they built our government. The boundaries they established so long ago were rooted in the human needs for religious and social freedom to pursue and define our own humanity under a government that sees and treats us each equally. The growing inequality in state and federal legislation across this country shelters those who would carry religious hatred and zealotry across the American Boundary and into the private lives of an unwilling minority. We must legalize gay marriage to restore the justice and equality that protect our citizens from those who don't know or don't care where to stop.