Gay Marriage - Where's the fury?
Disclaimer: I am either acquainted with, or friends with, several Christians. I am perfectly aware that both sides of the fence have irrational fanatics. If you feel offended by anything I say, please don't hesitate to bring it to me and we can talk about it
( Read more... )
The Supreme Court has called this, and other instances such as "in God we trust" on currency, "Ceremonial Deism." Basically, a nod to a supreme being without any judgment of one faith over another. (except for those hellbound animists and polytheists--um, did I just prove your point? ;-) Think about how far we've come, though...in the court-martial of the captain of the USS Indianapolis after WWII, there was debate over whether the captain of the Nipponese U-boat that sank his ship could even be called to testify (to wit, "he wasn't negligent because there wasn't a damn thing he could have done that would have made the slightest difference to me") because they didn't know if a heathen could be sworn in.
Anyway, marriage has a secular aspect as it intersects with property and tax law--the notion of treating it as distinct from the sacrament was never present until the issue of gay marriage came up. Judges are invested with the power of the state, not god. Priests and Ministers are invested by God and the state, so whether you go to one or both is solely dependent on personal circumstance.
To a degree, (and this is one thing that tells me it's *totally* irrational) this debate is about a word. Even the Constitutional Amendment in the works allows for something else that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is called a civil union. You said it yourself, that marriage could be defined as the sacred institution, distinct from the "civil union" involved. Certainly it's already distinct for same-sex couples, as it's no sweat to find a denomination that will sanctify their partnership, and the civil aspect is what they lack.
Personally? I think someone else's home life is nobody else's business and the government has no vested interest in "defending" marriage. It's pure and simple bigotry in my book.
Reply
I'd have to disagree with this. It's more a debate over a concept (which makes it all the worse). Marriage, in one form or another, has been around for many more years than the US government, yet somehow it's become now a legal thing, which I really feel it should not be. Tax me the same as everyone else, whether or not I choose to be in a "civil union" with my significant other or not. Offer health insurance to both in a relationship (hell even do away with the HMOs and offer health care for all the people). Where law is make it an even playing field.
Reply
I wasn't saying you didn't have a personal concept--I was referring to the larger debate, in which the right wing is willing to put up a constitutional amendment that basically says same-sex unions can have everything the states want to give them as long as they don't use the word "marriage" to describe it.
Marriage, in one form or another, has been around for many more years than the US government, yet somehow it's become now a legal thing
Legal definitions of marriage have also been around far longer than the US government. It's nothing new. If nothing else, how to govern divorces and child custody requires government involvement. In fact, that's ironically been a boost to equal marriage rights, as broken same-sex couples have been deemed "sufficiently marriage-like" to incur things such as alimony, child support, and joint custody agreements. If it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, after all.
Tax me the same as everyone else, whether or not I choose to be in a "civil union" with my significant other or not.
It's in the interests of the government to promote healthy, stable families, regardless of the debate over what qualifies as such. That creates an incentive to give a "marriage bonus" to taxpayers (how tax penalties got instituted is beyond me, but it's one of thousands of things that tell me the world is just plain crazy). Plus, many couples choose to pool their finances and share what they earn, very much muddying the waters as to what constitutes "the same as everyone else."
Offer health insurance to both in a relationship (hell even do away with the HMOs and offer health care for all the people).
HMOs and universal health care are not mutually exclusive. And if that healthcare does not require marriage, what does qualify? Do I have to register with the government everytime I go on a second date?
Where law is make it an even playing field.
It's long been recognized that governments have vested interest in promoting one choice or another in various means. Therefore "giving to charity" or "not giving" will never be on an even playing field--you can deduct it from your taxes because the govt. wants to make it attractive to earn that credit. Likewise, stable families are generally better for the social network than single-parent households. I think that the playing field should be level in terms of any couple having the opportunity to marry, but I also think that they should have to put up or shut up once that right is secured, in order to get the benefits of marriage.
Reply
Leave a comment