An Incomplete Freedom

The State has no legitimate right for denying individuals to do as they please, like people want to do drugs and marry their homosexual partners; however, State and national laws prohibit these very things. As institutions for and of the people they shouldn't block anything that a citizen of the United States desires to do unless they are harming others in some way.

In the Constitution it references God and the ten commandments; with this in mind I can understand how some would prohibit things that God also 'condemned' in the Bible and other holy books. Yet since then they have altered the laws in subsequent years; State and church are no longer functioning together. Also, in the Declaration of Independence, the piece of parchment that made the United States free, it states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (Declaration). It goes on to say we have the right to defend these rights. The State, however, is hindering these people who want to keep experiencing drugs or get married to their partner.

The State claims that it simply protects the peoples best interests, yet it is still hindering some of its people in many ways. These groups are minorities, yet aren't minorities supposed to be protected, helped and served? The State is trying to stifle them because the people on the decision boards don't think it's appropriate. They don't want their own kids to do these things. They think that it's morally wrong and that's where the meat of it is. Our laws claim that State and church are separate, yet they aren't. The men and women that make the laws normally have a moral belief system shaped in some form by a church based system and so they think that things are 'evil', like drugs and same sex relationships. They tried once to stem drinking, but apparently their God didn't mind it as much as they thought because the prohibition didn't last all that long.

A person should be allowed to do whatever they so desire as long as they aren't harming others directly around them. I've known people to get high or stoned and they have never put anyone in harms way. I'm not saying that bad things can happen when they are under these influences, but accidents happen no matter what frame of mind a person is in. I've also heard the arguments that if something bad does happen they won't be able to handle it properly. I can only speak of the people I've known, but when 'situations' arose they never failed to act. Besides, what if a person gets into a dangerous situation and simply freezes, but are under no outside chemical influence, isn't that a worse thing to happen? Occurrences happen and we all deal with them as they come, whether for the better or not.

People who do drugs are just as 'dangerous' as people who drink, yet if the person acts responsibly nothing happens. It's just the idea of addiction and losing control of your mind. Well, that describes drinking just as much, and drinking is legal. People who take drugs aren't hurting anyone but themselves (if even that, depending on the drug) and unless they start hurting others in some fashion they shouldn't be in violation of the law. Once they start harming or endangering others in some fashion, then yes, let the police take them in; just like with drinking.

Another issue that's being fought much harder than the legalizing drug issue is about homosexuals and marriage. Vermont "allows same-sex civil unions" and Massachusetts has declared not allowing gays to get married is unconstitutional, yet they have not legalized it yet (CNN, LAW). Two states out of fifty are baby stepping toward gay marriage rights.

So, homosexuals aren't hurting others in any way. Some may say that there are public displays of affection that they don't want to witness, then perhaps a cop can talk to them about pda's, yet heterosexual couples do the same things much more often and don't get near the complaints that same sex couples do. They only want to live out their lives and be happy. Getting married shows a deep commitment and connection to your partner, why should they be denied these simple rights? President Bush stated that marriage is between a man and woman (CNN, ALLPOLITICS) and in a different speech indicated that being gay was a sin. So these people, decent human beings who can be just as 'good' or 'bad' as the rest of us, are doing evil things by following their hearts. I know many homosexual people, among them couples. It is very sad to see them living, being some of the nicest people I know and all they can do is lament the fact that they aren't allowed to show their love to each other through the bonds of marriage.

How are these people hurting others? By them simply being themselves? Is it better for a human to live a lie to make others happy? I think that is a far worse deed. Denying your self of your true being will make you unhappy your whole life. The only reason homosexuals aren't allowed marriage is because their God has a sexual preference. The lawmakers don't like the idea of most drugs and in addition think that if they pass it the general populace will throw a fit, which is probably true, but what's the right thing to do? Suppress these minorities or help them be liberated from social, political and personal exile?

Works Cited
CNN.com. Cable News Network. 2004.

CNN.com. Cable News Network. 2004.

United States of America. The Continental Congress. The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies. Philadelphia. July 4, 1776.