incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
As you can see, I have purposely stayed out of the discussion since my post, for a variety of reasons. However, I do want to make a small clarification regarding your comment.
"I believe there are several religions/churches that recognize gay marriages now. And if our country is based on freedom of religion, why should the country not allow it?"
Prop 8 and others like it, unless I am very much mistaken, have nothing to do with allowing gay marriage and have nothing to do with churches. A gay couple can get married at any church that performs such ceremonies regardless of the law. No one I know of is talking about legally prohibiting gay marriages in that way, and if they are, I do not support them.
What we're talking about is the government recognizing a gay couple as "married" the same way it recognizes a heterosexual couple as "married". The issue, as I see it, is that people that believe "marriage" is a sacred, God-given union bristle at seeing their government apply the term to a union that doesn't fit the definition.
Every time people like Keith Olbermann and other people against Prop 8 bring into it how people should be able to declare their love publicly or that supporters are trying to make the world a less love-filled place, they are being intellectually dishonest - perhaps not intentionally, but the effect is the same.
No one in their right mind would argue that it's the government's recognition of a heterosexual marriage that produces or fosters the love, commitment, and bond of that marriage. Nor should anyone argue that by the government not legally recognizing a homosexual union as "marriage", it is somehow preventing love, commitment, or bonding. If you don't think about it too hard, it's a good argument because it pulls at emotion. But logically, the argument doesn't hold water.
I'm not saying there is no emotion involved. I'm sure that it must feel awful to have the government essentially say to you that one's love and commitment to their partner is invalid. Of course it is an emotional issue. I'm just saying that the argument that those against legal recognition of gay marriage are somehow denying people love and commitment are not being truthful.
even though I had no great desire to get into the mixubersaurusNovember 13 2008, 01:25:48 UTC
I'd say the main argument when you get right down to it is the desire by gay couples, and their straight supporters for that matter, to afford those couples the legal rights that straight couples get under the law. Visitation rights for hospital visits. Tax breaks. Power of attorney; hell even who gets stuff if one person dies. As it stands, these things default back to a person's immediate family, who may or may not approve of their relationship. Yes, some consider it an issue of love, and I do think that people who love each other should be able to say they are married. It's a cultural thing. Kind of like those weirdos who consider someone "in play" as long as they don't have a ring on their finger. It's almost like a status symbol for some people, to say that you're married to someone you love. But it really comes down to the legal aspects.
After the disaster of prohibition, I think that legislating morality will always be a disaster. You can argue to death that this isn't actually legislating morality, but I get that notion that it is. I mean, someone else certainly put this forth: What harm does this do to straight couples, if anything?
Whether or not a church wants to recognize the marriage is irrelevant - they don't have literal power. But the government is different, and the government should recognize a committed couple regardless of what sort they are, and afford them the proper legal upsides.
"I believe there are several religions/churches that recognize gay marriages now. And if our country is based on freedom of religion, why should the country not allow it?"
Prop 8 and others like it, unless I am very much mistaken, have nothing to do with allowing gay marriage and have nothing to do with churches. A gay couple can get married at any church that performs such ceremonies regardless of the law. No one I know of is talking about legally prohibiting gay marriages in that way, and if they are, I do not support them.
What we're talking about is the government recognizing a gay couple as "married" the same way it recognizes a heterosexual couple as "married". The issue, as I see it, is that people that believe "marriage" is a sacred, God-given union bristle at seeing their government apply the term to a union that doesn't fit the definition.
Every time people like Keith Olbermann and other people against Prop 8 bring into it how people should be able to declare their love publicly or that supporters are trying to make the world a less love-filled place, they are being intellectually dishonest - perhaps not intentionally, but the effect is the same.
No one in their right mind would argue that it's the government's recognition of a heterosexual marriage that produces or fosters the love, commitment, and bond of that marriage. Nor should anyone argue that by the government not legally recognizing a homosexual union as "marriage", it is somehow preventing love, commitment, or bonding. If you don't think about it too hard, it's a good argument because it pulls at emotion. But logically, the argument doesn't hold water.
I'm not saying there is no emotion involved. I'm sure that it must feel awful to have the government essentially say to you that one's love and commitment to their partner is invalid. Of course it is an emotional issue. I'm just saying that the argument that those against legal recognition of gay marriage are somehow denying people love and commitment are not being truthful.
Reply
After the disaster of prohibition, I think that legislating morality will always be a disaster. You can argue to death that this isn't actually legislating morality, but I get that notion that it is. I mean, someone else certainly put this forth: What harm does this do to straight couples, if anything?
Whether or not a church wants to recognize the marriage is irrelevant - they don't have literal power. But the government is different, and the government should recognize a committed couple regardless of what sort they are, and afford them the proper legal upsides.
Reply
Leave a comment