Gray matters

I find it troubling that we as a society so easily fall into the trap of declaring issues in absolute terms. For example, and drawing again on my recent excursion to D.C., I kept thinking to myself that I support immigration reform, just not reform identical to that being called for in the rallies on the lawn. There are similar questions of choice specific to terminating pregnancy and the recognition of same-sex couples.

I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.

However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.

Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.

At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.