July 13, 2004

Can't Avoid It

To preserve the ever-so-delicate state of my sanity, I'm trying to ignore politics this week. It's a difficult endeavor what with the whole debate going on in the Senate regarding the proposed Constitutional amendment.

But when I read this post over at Obsidian Wings, the following excerpts really hit on why I just don't understand how anyone can feel the need for our Constitution to be amended to define marriage.

Edward_ wrote (in part):
"Gay people want equal treatment under the law. This shocks some people. How dare they? But to understand how simple and primal this is, all they need to do is imagine the reverse. You, as straight, are the minority, and the gay majority wants you to accept second-class citizenship. You'd be throwing up barricades and bombing police headquarters within a week. Give your gay fellow citizens a break. They really just want to buy a house, start a family, and retire with a nest egg that allows them to travel a bit and complete their collection of fine china replicas of Judy Garland and Shirley Temple. Your fear is unfounded. If you were as busy as you wish you were having straight sex, by the way, you'd have precious little time to give any thought at all to what your gay neighbors were doing. Sort that out before you pass an amendment chiseling discrimination into our most precious document."
And some of the comments fleshed this out a bit more:

Fabius commented (in part):
"My current defense of gays against the militant anti-gay (who happen to belong to all races and political persuasions) is to begin by insisting that I don't want special rights for gays - I just expect that they have the same rights as the rest of us."
And Brian added (in part):
"As to the specifics of gay marriage and rights, I would make the following points:
  1. Why should it matter that gays want to make 'married' commitments to one another?
  2. Why should they be prevented from doing so in the US while all other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?
  3. What has done more to weaken the institution of marriage and social cohesion? Is it gays wanting to make a commitment to each other or heterosexual infidelity, divorce, single-parent families? Or is it the alcoholism, drugs, domestic violence, arguments about money that take place within marriages that destroy love and the cohesion of society?
  4. Some argue that marriage is about children. ... But marriage is not always about children and permitting gay 'marriage' does not alter that.
  5. For those that argue that marriage is a religious act, here Mr Bush and I agree, you are still able to ask whether it is the duty of the state to impose a religious choice. I don't think it is."
While none of the above perfectly represents my own feelings on the subject, a number of the larger points are touched on. Religion and politics are separate. That is a basic tenet of American civil liberties. Or it's supposed to be. But is the big stink over just the word 'marriage'? Or is it over same gender unions of any type? Our Constitution is not a dictionary after all. So why write the definition of marriage into it? And let's not forget how some heterosexuals treat marriage and commitment and family as far, far less than sacred. But is anyone proposing to strip from those folks their right to get married and divorced and married and divorced as many times as they may choose? Nope. Because that type of behavior doesn't harm the 'sanctity of marriage' or undermine the 'family structure'. Sanctimonious bastards.

Babbling I may be. This topic does that to me.

1 comment:

Eyes said...

I think it is so wrong to deny the validity of love. Love is a beautiful thing that should be sacred regardless of sexes involved.

May the day come soon where we as a people promote love instead of hate, and separation.