Today’s post begins with a fractal called Marital Pride. I created it on the day San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in spite of Proposition 22 (which defined “marriage” only as a union between ONE man and ONE woman.) Considering the subject matter the fractal seemed singularly appropriate.-
Last May (I don’t have the exact date) the California State Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 to be unconstitutional and directed state agencies to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Opponents mounted a request for a “Stay” until a new measure could be placed on the ballot in November. June 2nd it was announced the measure had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. On June 3rd the State Supreme Court ruled against the stay. So as of June 17th same-sex couples will be allowed to marry (at least until the Proposition passes in November). What happens after that nobody knows…
-
Way back when Proposition 22 was put on the ballot advocates made a big point of saying that it was in no way an attempt to deprive ANYONE of rights but simply was to PROTECT marriage. OK could somebody PLEASE explain to me why marriages NEEDS to be protected? Is legalization of same-sex marriage going to cause of family break-ups as people abandon their partners for new partners? Honestly, I don’t see this happening. Will same-sex marriages diminish the institution in any way? I can’t see how. They also say we must protect the “Sanctity of Marriage”. (President George W. Bush said this on more than one occasion.) Senator and Republican Presidential-Candidate John McCain said we should honor the “unique status of a marriage between a man and woman” (on the Ellen show. Here’s a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8. Check it out for yourself.) All I want to know is this--what exactly IS the “unique status” of marriage? For the life of me I can’t think what the might be and why we need to protect it.
-
Senator McCain said he believes people should be able to “enter into legal agreements” especially in the case of “insurance and other things”. Still, you have to contrast that with what the Court said: (paraphrasing here--domestic partnerships are not equivalent. We learned back when Racial Integration in the schools wasn’t a regular thing that separate but equal isn’t equal at all. Much as some people might wish it to be otherwise there will always be those who deny same-sex couples their rights until they are granted the right to marry. I saw this happen with my dear friends Joyce and Jeanne and I think what happened to them was frankly criminal.
-
For foes of same-sex marriage it primarily boils down to religious objections. The First Amendment guarantees Religious Freedom. It seems to me though, that BECAUSE of said First Amendment Religious Groups shouldn’t be allowed to force their viewpoints on everyone else
-
In the end it boils down to one simple question. Is marriage a “Sacred Institution” or is it a “Civil Contract”? If marriage truly IS a sacred institution then the government has NO BUSINESS meddling with that. Each Church can decide what they think constitutes a “sacred union” and everyone would have to respect that. Logical extension also indicates that married couples should lose their tax benefits and whatever “unique status“ marriage brings. If marriage is a “Civil Contract” there isn’t any reason why same-sex couples SHOULDN’T be allowed the same benefits as hetero couples.
-
Think about it . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment