Free Choice, Commitment, and Due Process

In a free democratic society, individuals have rights guaranteed by law along with their preferred religious practices governing how people live their lives. Much is made in America regarding race and relationships and it gets a great deal of attention. So much that fraternal agreements and understandings regulate initiation rituals to reinforce separation. During the creation of American society, recognition of some humans as property was allowed and through enlightenment and years of legal evolution the framework was amended to grant freedoms to all. Given this development, how could any ethnic group claim ownership or violation of property rights with an interracial relationship? Even further to the point within a given racial or ethnic group? Not even the heavily referred Bible recognizes adultery without a prior marriage commitment. Neither the constitution nor the Bible identifies these relations as violating the law. Any attempts to carry out punishment or restriction are themselves liable improper judgments. Trying to keep separate 300 million people is just not practical nor socially & economically desirable. Neither is the idea of genetically re-engineering an American Black race.

My experience has revealed that the admittance of liability or wrongdoing is very hard to achieve from some groups or people. Primarily, the accused or guilty party tries to mitigate the financial punishment for such actions without establishing a legal precedent. Regarding relationships, I look for compatible personalities, matching of values and goals, and partnership more than I do race or ethnicity. I do not regard matching within your own ethnicity nor pre-arranged relationships as a personal responsibility which contradicts the values I embrace as American. History is important but not determinant. There are many groups in society that make “racial solidarity” their cause and path toward success. However, separation solidarity is neither the American history lesson nor the direction of a progressing democratic society. Choices are made when people are comfortable understanding the agreement with some future predictability of the outcome. There are common interests within ethnic groups and they do not limit choices and freedoms. Community commitment and free choice are not mutually exclusive ideals.

The use of fraternal, religious organizations to create career liabilities and family hardships for anyone that does not conform to someone’s ethnic definition is a liability increasing social costs burdening the state. It limits earning potential (tax revenues to government), committed family development, and reinforces ethnic stereotypes. An even greater threat to the democracy is the delay of due process to protect the organized, fraternal violations of law in an attempt to replace with a subjugated group belonging. So, does the American democratic experiment continue to grow or do we fall victim to the separate, (prophetic) group commitments creating its own rules difficult to globally enforce and adjudicate within the legal system of equal justice?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
update: December 2013