It has been a while since I posted to this blog, something I will try and remedy very soon. I should probably be working on my NaNoWriMo novel instead of this, but this election had really made me wonder, what is wrong with this country?
I say we took one small step for man and woman kind, which was electing Obama someone I hope can live up to his expectations and if he can, this country could definitly use it. But I say one giant step back because of a few states that have decided to put discrimination and hate into their state constitutions. Florida, Arizona and at this time it is looking like even California have banned Gay marriage.
I do not understand why such a thing is even an issue.
Marriage by definition is a legal entity that religious groups have also taken on, but first and foremost it is legal. I would bet a years salary that most people who voted to ban gay marriage did so for religious reasons who do not remember when they got married (or when they have been to a wedding) that there was one key thing said at the end "By the power invested in me by the state of ___ " yes, most of the time they say God as well, but them must say the state because marriage is a LEGAL contract, you are binding yourself legally to that person, debt, bad credit score and all.
No one really needs a piece of paper to tell them who they love, but they do need a piece of paper to show that they have the legal rights for that person should they not be able to make decisions themselves.
This should not be a religious issue at all, the church does not have to marry anyone at all if they so choose, the government has no say in that (they do have a say if they are legally married, but not if they are married in the eyes of God , or whoever you choose to believe in.) I was told by a church official that when my fiance' and I were going to get married that he had the right to refuse to marry us, and I am fine with that. He is a religious official not a legal one, if I went to the court house to get married and they said I could not, that would be another matter entirely. There is a reason we have a seperation of church and state, and banning gay marriage simply because you think a higher power thinks it is wrong (don't even get me started on how there is homosexuality in many species of animals, not just humans) that is not a separation.
Allowing two men or two women to marry does not threaten your way of life, nor does it demean your marriage. It does nothing to you because it has nothing to do with you. If anything at all, it demeans your marriage that you have banned someone else from having the same rights as you, it says to me that you are better than other people and that an entire way of life should be forbidden. This has been done many times before and it did not work out well for anybody (WW II anyone??).
I have no doubt that someday this issue will be a thing of the past, something to learn about in history books while the children of the day wonder why people as they are now were so ignorant just like we look back at slavery, burning people for being witches, segregation, and womens rights.
Today should be a day where we are proud to be Americans, that we have the right to choose who will lead our country where we have freedoms that many do not, but today I will say that I am embarrassed to be an American, that I am associate with people who are still so eager to hang their fellow man because they are different than you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, marriage has been a religious concept for a much longer time than it has been a civil one.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, all the rights/protections which marriage afford can easily be reproduced without tainting the marriage concept. And that's even before you step into the realm of a Civil Union which IS an entirely legal structure.
As an aside, my pastor did not state that he had power invested in him by the State at my marriage. The only reason my marriage was registered with the state was to make my wife taking my name easier. Marriage is a religious concept, one picked up by the state to ensure the most benign environment for child rearing.
Additionally, by endorsing this definition of marriage, I've not impinged on anyone's rights. Anyone can get married, they just can't marry someone of the same sex. Much in the same way someone can't marry a dog or a tree or a child. If we shift marriage one way (allowing same sex) what's stopping us from shifting it in another (i.e. marriage to a dog or a child)?
Finally, if the definition of marriage is expanded to include these things which have never before been a part of it, what happens to all those pastors who cannot perform these weddings because of their beliefs? How long before their churches lose their IRS tax status (or worse) because they stand up for their beliefs? Don't believe me? Check out what happened to the Catholic Adoption Services in those states which legalized adoption for homosexual couples.
First off, yay! a response! :D
ReplyDeleteSecond, I know we will never agree on this but I do enjoy talking about it!
Third... well it's more than third:
There were forms of marriages dating back to cavemen, but obviously we don't know much about them, the earliest documented marriage go back to the ancient Egyptians and it was a legal contract to them. Though if you really think about it, marriage for a very long time was (and in some places it still is) actually more of a business transaction than anything! But all this could truely be argued either way.
Had your marriage not been registered with the state, you would not have been entitled to the legal rights of a married couple, which is the thing for which I am arguing.
Churches have the right to marry or not marry any one they want. As I said before, I was specifically told that if the priest of my mothers church didn't want to marry us, he didn't have to do so, no matter what the reason. The state can not forbid us from getting married as long as we are consenting adults, this is the way it should be. I'm not asking for church officials to have to marry a couple, I'm asking the states to do so.
All the churches I read about that had issues with their adoption services pulled out voluntarily rather than fight it which they could have done, instead they choose not to get into it. In court the probably would have won due to separation of church and state. Should state adoption services be allowed to do prevent same-sex couples from adopting, absolutely not. It is discrimination of sexual preference and should not be allowed. Churches have been discriminating for a long time and that is their right, it is not the states. (I am refraining from getting into the adoption argument because that is a whole different can of worms!)
"Anyone can get married..." you said, but basically they just can't marry the person they love.
But the biggest thing that bothers me in your argument comes up quite frequently in this debate, that allowing same-sex couples to marry is just one step closer to allowing humans to marry another animal or a child. I am talking about allowing consenting ADULT Homo sapiens to marry, not other animals. Letting two men or two women to marry is not a step towards allowing bestiality or marrying a child (which I must admit, even as a straight woman, I am offended for same sex couples that these two things could be compared).
Now, when we can translate dolphins or ape (etc.) languages and they have the ability to say they want to marry a human of their own free will, then we can come back to that argument (and yes, if it was of their own free will I would support it.) but until then, it is preposterous.
I guess it really comes down to your definition of "marriage" which I am doing another blog on so I will not get into it here.
Thanks for responding! *hugs*