Why I'm Not Voting for Bush Part 2
Gay Marriage.
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, marriage is:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
It also says this, though:
"the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"
If that's not good enough, we also have the definition of common-law as:
"the cohabitation of a couple even when it does not constitute a legal marriage."
From what I see, gay marriage is legal in some shape and form, even if one decides to bring religion into the mix. No matter what anyone says, in our culture, marriage is a legal action and not a religious one. You get a marriage certificate which is a document of U.S. Domestic Law, not Catholic or Jewish Law. Since this country was founded on Freedom of Religion, it makes it difficult to consider marriage a religious ideology instead of a legal one. Now, people of a more radical religious view than me, see marriage as a spiritual union, which I can agree with, but at the same time they view "spiritual" in this context as a set of laws given down by God. Yeah. I can't really agree with that part seeing as how I'm an atheist. For me and many other people around the world (especially in countries where the act of marriage does not have a basis on religion, but society necessities), I see marriage as a social union for the betterment of the immediate social circles around a person or couple as is the case here. Social, not religious. I can't place ore emphasis on that.
Now, in my opinion, I see the reasoning behind this new issue has it's root in the media. Queer and For the Straight Guy and The L Word have given the American Public a picture of homosexuality that can only be summed as, "Good with fashion, but just like you and I". I once asked a friend of mine who is gay how he felt about this whole thing. I did so, because I felt that as "enlightened" as I view myself to be, I might be missing some important insight, since I am not gay. His answer did not surprise me, but it did give me that new insight. Though he didn't mind the television shows and, in fact, viewed them as entertaining, he did see them akin to the blaxploitation of the Seventies. I can see his point. The blaxploitation during the 70's was interesting. Someone saw a niche market that was not being fulfilled by the media of the day and decided to fill n that niche. Hence, the beginning of blaxploitation and already it's beginning to sound familiar. The basis of the exploitation coming after the bastardized form of the word "blacks" comes from the actors acting out characters that were nothing but stereotypes. Apparently, during the 70's, the African-American race were sexual icons and violently "damning the man", who were usually white, male capitalists. These movies and television shows were also written by white writers. I guess they felt that they had a handle on what it was to be black in 70's America. Now take this little history lesson and apply it to today's Gazeploitation shows. They look very similar, huh?
Now considering the source of why America, especially Heterosexual America, is so interested in Gay Rights, it doesn't reassure me that American Society is ready to move their nuclear family next to the gay version of the Cleavers in Suburbia, unless of course Daddy was on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and met Mommy because of the Fab Five. Now don't get me wrong, I firmly support gay marriage and will go so far as fight for it, which is something I normally don't do. I have a lot of good friends who are gay and don't see a reason to dislike them for the reason that they like to have sex with someone who has the same plumbing. I won't view stalling the issue of gay marriage until their is a majority who want it working in Congress. The Art of War tells us to not let the enemy chose our battlefields or the timing of our battles, maybe we should keep that in mind.
On the other side of it, making an Amendment to the Constitution is kind of ludicrous. In my treatise on the Iraq War, I gave you several links and now I have decided to give you a breather from them, but I think these two links here and here are fairly important that I would need to link them. These links will give you a history lesson on Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I see only one Amendment that has ever been passed that directly restricted a person's freedom without giving freedom to a larger majority. That would be the infamous Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, go figure. I can see the rationality behind the States upholding their individual laws on marriage, but... a Federal Law placed into the Constitution? A law prohibiting a person's freedom of choice to choose the partner that they want to spend the rest of their life with? Since when did this Nation tell us who we could love?
To go back to my ability to see the rationale behind state laws, as much as I'm against opposing gay marriage, if a judge sees fit that upholding the exact wording of the laws that are concerned with marriage, there's not much I can say against that. A judge upholds the law, the do not create or change laws. That's what Legislators are for. If the majority of a stat votes against changing the laws or creating a law upholding gay marriage, maybe you should move to a state that isn't so close-minded. Unless you live in a commune, I'm sure public displays of affection with your partner tends to get uncomfortable. There's no reason why someone should hide love.
Oh and for the record, I do disagree with Gay Marriage proponents sending email or letters to gay members of the opponents for Gay Marriage. What is that going to accomplish? If I could change my father's way, he would have stopped wearing black socks with Bermuda shorts and white tennis shoes years ago.
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, marriage is:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
It also says this, though:
"the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"
If that's not good enough, we also have the definition of common-law as:
"the cohabitation of a couple even when it does not constitute a legal marriage."
From what I see, gay marriage is legal in some shape and form, even if one decides to bring religion into the mix. No matter what anyone says, in our culture, marriage is a legal action and not a religious one. You get a marriage certificate which is a document of U.S. Domestic Law, not Catholic or Jewish Law. Since this country was founded on Freedom of Religion, it makes it difficult to consider marriage a religious ideology instead of a legal one. Now, people of a more radical religious view than me, see marriage as a spiritual union, which I can agree with, but at the same time they view "spiritual" in this context as a set of laws given down by God. Yeah. I can't really agree with that part seeing as how I'm an atheist. For me and many other people around the world (especially in countries where the act of marriage does not have a basis on religion, but society necessities), I see marriage as a social union for the betterment of the immediate social circles around a person or couple as is the case here. Social, not religious. I can't place ore emphasis on that.
Now, in my opinion, I see the reasoning behind this new issue has it's root in the media. Queer and For the Straight Guy and The L Word have given the American Public a picture of homosexuality that can only be summed as, "Good with fashion, but just like you and I". I once asked a friend of mine who is gay how he felt about this whole thing. I did so, because I felt that as "enlightened" as I view myself to be, I might be missing some important insight, since I am not gay. His answer did not surprise me, but it did give me that new insight. Though he didn't mind the television shows and, in fact, viewed them as entertaining, he did see them akin to the blaxploitation of the Seventies. I can see his point. The blaxploitation during the 70's was interesting. Someone saw a niche market that was not being fulfilled by the media of the day and decided to fill n that niche. Hence, the beginning of blaxploitation and already it's beginning to sound familiar. The basis of the exploitation coming after the bastardized form of the word "blacks" comes from the actors acting out characters that were nothing but stereotypes. Apparently, during the 70's, the African-American race were sexual icons and violently "damning the man", who were usually white, male capitalists. These movies and television shows were also written by white writers. I guess they felt that they had a handle on what it was to be black in 70's America. Now take this little history lesson and apply it to today's Gazeploitation shows. They look very similar, huh?
Now considering the source of why America, especially Heterosexual America, is so interested in Gay Rights, it doesn't reassure me that American Society is ready to move their nuclear family next to the gay version of the Cleavers in Suburbia, unless of course Daddy was on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and met Mommy because of the Fab Five. Now don't get me wrong, I firmly support gay marriage and will go so far as fight for it, which is something I normally don't do. I have a lot of good friends who are gay and don't see a reason to dislike them for the reason that they like to have sex with someone who has the same plumbing. I won't view stalling the issue of gay marriage until their is a majority who want it working in Congress. The Art of War tells us to not let the enemy chose our battlefields or the timing of our battles, maybe we should keep that in mind.
On the other side of it, making an Amendment to the Constitution is kind of ludicrous. In my treatise on the Iraq War, I gave you several links and now I have decided to give you a breather from them, but I think these two links here and here are fairly important that I would need to link them. These links will give you a history lesson on Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I see only one Amendment that has ever been passed that directly restricted a person's freedom without giving freedom to a larger majority. That would be the infamous Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, go figure. I can see the rationality behind the States upholding their individual laws on marriage, but... a Federal Law placed into the Constitution? A law prohibiting a person's freedom of choice to choose the partner that they want to spend the rest of their life with? Since when did this Nation tell us who we could love?
To go back to my ability to see the rationale behind state laws, as much as I'm against opposing gay marriage, if a judge sees fit that upholding the exact wording of the laws that are concerned with marriage, there's not much I can say against that. A judge upholds the law, the do not create or change laws. That's what Legislators are for. If the majority of a stat votes against changing the laws or creating a law upholding gay marriage, maybe you should move to a state that isn't so close-minded. Unless you live in a commune, I'm sure public displays of affection with your partner tends to get uncomfortable. There's no reason why someone should hide love.
Oh and for the record, I do disagree with Gay Marriage proponents sending email or letters to gay members of the opponents for Gay Marriage. What is that going to accomplish? If I could change my father's way, he would have stopped wearing black socks with Bermuda shorts and white tennis shoes years ago.