Go Jonathan! Go Jonathan!
I don't want a debate, I just want to give my respect to a friend of mine that wrote this article.
Gay marriage opponents make mockery of country
By Jonathan Kleinow
Published: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Jonathan Kleinow
A lot has happened in the last few weeks to bring gay marriage into the media spotlight. Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the state must either allow full gay marriage or pass a state constitutional amendment prohibiting them. Ohio's Legislature and governor passed a bill not only outlawing gay marriage, but also preventing state agencies from giving benefits to same-sex couples.
And now, Missouri's Legislature is working to put an amendment on November's ballot defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Missouri legislator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) said a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent "activist judiciaries" from overturning the state law.
My question is, if the law on the books is, in fact, unconstitutional, shouldn't we review the reasons why before we do something major like change the constitution?
I have to say I'm disappointed, if not surprised, by the resistance to gay marriage. It is odd to hear the same people who decry promiscuity among gays deny them the opportunity to spend their lives together.
Opponents also cite the concept that gay marriage will somehow demean the sanctity of existing marriages. Excuse me, but haven't "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and Britney Spears already done that? We have a 50 percent divorce rate in this country, yet I see no one making arguments for stricter divorce laws.
Others argue that because gay couples cannot "naturally" produce children, they cannot have a true marriage.
That's a slap in the face to every straight couple that cannot have children or chooses not to. Should we make it illegal for women to get married after menopause? They can't produce children in that union, either. What about men with a low sperm count?
In the end, these opponents are only working to further their own narrow-minded and bigoted views on the public. I've been told it's only a matter of time before these laws are overturned.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean we should sit idle and wait for change to come. Some have decried the work of San Francisco's mayor last week in issuing marriage licenses to gays, but that is exactly the kind of civil disobedience we need from officials if we are going to see these rights secured.
I look at the debate on this issue the way I look at the debate on segregation in the 1950s. It seems so ridiculous now to deny civil rights to blacks, and opponents of gay marriage will sound as ridiculous to my son as George Wallace does to me saying "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
I hope this issue is settled soon. I don't want to have to explain to my son why the government feels two men or two women who love and care for each other deeply are less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than reality-show contestants.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's always nice to know that you have friends outside of your little bubble at NU or wherever you may be, that know you for who you are, and that support you for who you are.
Thanks, Jonathan. Thanks for being a good friend, even if you're not doing it on purpose. =)
Gay marriage opponents make mockery of country
By Jonathan Kleinow
Published: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Jonathan Kleinow
A lot has happened in the last few weeks to bring gay marriage into the media spotlight. Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the state must either allow full gay marriage or pass a state constitutional amendment prohibiting them. Ohio's Legislature and governor passed a bill not only outlawing gay marriage, but also preventing state agencies from giving benefits to same-sex couples.
And now, Missouri's Legislature is working to put an amendment on November's ballot defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Missouri legislator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) said a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent "activist judiciaries" from overturning the state law.
My question is, if the law on the books is, in fact, unconstitutional, shouldn't we review the reasons why before we do something major like change the constitution?
I have to say I'm disappointed, if not surprised, by the resistance to gay marriage. It is odd to hear the same people who decry promiscuity among gays deny them the opportunity to spend their lives together.
Opponents also cite the concept that gay marriage will somehow demean the sanctity of existing marriages. Excuse me, but haven't "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and Britney Spears already done that? We have a 50 percent divorce rate in this country, yet I see no one making arguments for stricter divorce laws.
Others argue that because gay couples cannot "naturally" produce children, they cannot have a true marriage.
That's a slap in the face to every straight couple that cannot have children or chooses not to. Should we make it illegal for women to get married after menopause? They can't produce children in that union, either. What about men with a low sperm count?
In the end, these opponents are only working to further their own narrow-minded and bigoted views on the public. I've been told it's only a matter of time before these laws are overturned.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean we should sit idle and wait for change to come. Some have decried the work of San Francisco's mayor last week in issuing marriage licenses to gays, but that is exactly the kind of civil disobedience we need from officials if we are going to see these rights secured.
I look at the debate on this issue the way I look at the debate on segregation in the 1950s. It seems so ridiculous now to deny civil rights to blacks, and opponents of gay marriage will sound as ridiculous to my son as George Wallace does to me saying "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
I hope this issue is settled soon. I don't want to have to explain to my son why the government feels two men or two women who love and care for each other deeply are less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than reality-show contestants.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's always nice to know that you have friends outside of your little bubble at NU or wherever you may be, that know you for who you are, and that support you for who you are.
Thanks, Jonathan. Thanks for being a good friend, even if you're not doing it on purpose. =)