Like Joseph Stalin, and Gandhi...
Well, here we Americans sit, with just 5 (counting today) days until the election. Most everyone (myself included) has their own opinion about why they're voting for Bush, Kerry or Nader. But in the end, it matters not who we vote for. The electoral college will decide for us who gets to be President for the next four years. And these are people who are loyal to the political parties that choose them. So when we go vote on November 2, it doesn't matter who we vote for, because the popular vote decides nothing. But still, I'm going to vote, because it is my civic right and duty, hollow as it is. Well, maybe half-hollow, because my vote counts for the Senators and House Reps.
But of all the he-said/he-did that has been thrown around and back and forth, the one issue that has given me the most cause to ponder is gay marriage. Sure, Congress already voted down a national amendment to the Constitution, but many states (mine included) have their own versions on the ballot. And if they pass (which they most likely will), then those states don't need a federal mandate to deny basic rights to a small minority of people.
And why? Surely not to "protect the sanctity of marriage." Marriage simply does not need protection in the form of a mean-spirited political campaign designed to marginalize vulnerable members of society. Proponents of the amendment say marriage must be protected to protect families, but protection requires supporting all families, including families composed of people who are different from us.
Marriage is a religious sacrament, but it also is a civil union in which the government confers certain legal protections upon the citizens entering the union, regardless of their religion. The Constitution's protection of the free exercise of religion means that no church can be required to perform a marriage against its teachings. But the legal protections conferred by the state on committed couples to protect their families' legal rights should not be limited by the religious views of people outside the union.
The founders of this nation separated the church from the state for a reason. And that reason is so the Christian doctrine isn't oppressively applied against everyone else who disagrees. Why can't so many people realize that the Constitution is not to be used to promote any personal or religious ideals? *deep sigh* Well, needless to say, I'll be voting "NO" on this one.
Now, with all this being said, I'd like to make my personal observation about the whole thing. I remember a few months ago, when the news channels were covering the gay couples being married in California and Massachusetts. And I remember that the men looked like 60 year-old investment bankers, and the women were hard to differentiate from the men. You didn't see two Playmates up there getting hitched.
And to me, that says a hell of a lot...
But of all the he-said/he-did that has been thrown around and back and forth, the one issue that has given me the most cause to ponder is gay marriage. Sure, Congress already voted down a national amendment to the Constitution, but many states (mine included) have their own versions on the ballot. And if they pass (which they most likely will), then those states don't need a federal mandate to deny basic rights to a small minority of people.
And why? Surely not to "protect the sanctity of marriage." Marriage simply does not need protection in the form of a mean-spirited political campaign designed to marginalize vulnerable members of society. Proponents of the amendment say marriage must be protected to protect families, but protection requires supporting all families, including families composed of people who are different from us.
Marriage is a religious sacrament, but it also is a civil union in which the government confers certain legal protections upon the citizens entering the union, regardless of their religion. The Constitution's protection of the free exercise of religion means that no church can be required to perform a marriage against its teachings. But the legal protections conferred by the state on committed couples to protect their families' legal rights should not be limited by the religious views of people outside the union.
The founders of this nation separated the church from the state for a reason. And that reason is so the Christian doctrine isn't oppressively applied against everyone else who disagrees. Why can't so many people realize that the Constitution is not to be used to promote any personal or religious ideals? *deep sigh* Well, needless to say, I'll be voting "NO" on this one.
Now, with all this being said, I'd like to make my personal observation about the whole thing. I remember a few months ago, when the news channels were covering the gay couples being married in California and Massachusetts. And I remember that the men looked like 60 year-old investment bankers, and the women were hard to differentiate from the men. You didn't see two Playmates up there getting hitched.
And to me, that says a hell of a lot...