Guest PostGay Marriage: Vote For Liberty Linda Long
PJ's Note: As some of you may or may not know, today there is an election in Texas for Proposition 2. This is an amendment to the state constitution on whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry. My good friend Linda Long (who brought us our beloved Hamster Fighting Machine), feels very strongly about this issue, and would like to encourage everyone to go vote. How would she like you to vote? I think she says it best...enjoy everyone, and thanks Linda!
Why are so many people up in arms about Proposition 2 in Texas (and in America)? Isn't it clearly unconstitutional to restrict the rights of any citizen ... and isn't this proposition clearly doing that? And on what grounds? ..... please, please, don't tell me religion. This has NOTHING to do with your own personal religious beliefs ... this is a state constitutional amendment, not church.
It is our obligation as citizens of this great country to fight to protect liberty and not to take it away- many people have died to protect the rights of citizens of this country. Are we honoring them with proper dignity by allowing the restriction of rights to a portion of citizens because we feel we are "holier than thou" enough to judge what rights get allocated to some citizens and not others?
Aren't the conservatives/republicans against strong government control anyway? Then why would they support this? In addition to this interest of many republicans, what about the economic implications: don't many companies give benefits in recognition of same sex parters? Some companies have already threatened not to build in Texas if this proposition is passed. This non-inclusive move would hurt the "Jesus for Big Business" campaign the Republicans are pushing right now.
The last Constitutional Amendment (although we are not voting to change THE Constitution, thank God!) that was written to take away rights and not protect them was the amendment for Prohibition ... and we all know what happened to that.
And here's the thing: If you don't want to be gay and get married to someone else of the same sex, great- good for you. You can choose to do that! And if your church chooses to marry two people of the same sex, you can choose to go to another church if you don't like it- its a free damn country. Remember that the church doesn't have to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to: Catholic churches don't recognize Baptist marriages (my parents had to get married twice so the catholic church would agree to baptize me), no churches recognize common law marriages, etc. BUT, the state should recognize and protect the rights of ALL people within the state, regardless of their religious beliefs (and they do so for people stuck in common law marriages).
And for those people that say that the allowance of gay marriages threatens the sanctity of marriage, listen up: the biggest threats to the sanctity of marriage are the temper, ego, psychological health, selfishness and sensitivity of the two people involved in the marriage ... and NOT the marriage of others.
Now there isn't much to say in defense of banning gay marriage unless you break out your bible ... and in that case, you've stepped outside the bounds of writing law (yes, believe it or not ... there are ideals that came before writing of the bible ... summed up by one of the greatest Americans of all times as "basic human rights"). No doubt, gay marriage will probably get banned in Texas (there are plenty of uneducated religious fanatics that can't understand the importance of separation between religion and law; like homer simpson says, "that's funny because its not me").. but it won't be constitutionally protected. Thank God for our Deist driven forefathers (yes, that's write, the constitution was written in terms of Deist ideals and not Christian- whether or not some of the writers were indeed Christians ). I love that about being American.
So when you get out to vote, today and in the future, think bigger. Think about all citizens ... what if the tables were turned and someone wanted to take away your rights based on their religious beliefs. Wouldn't you want them to say, "I believe XXX, but I won't impose my beliefs on you so that we can both live freely together in America."
When you begin to strip rights from citizens, you are climbing a slippery slope. If we can begin to allow for rights to be taken away from people, we are just beginning to "boil the frog" (if you don't know the story of how to boil a frog, look it up).
Here's a great quote to end with from Martin Niemoller about the effect of not acting when others rights are being taken away; even if it doesn't affect us:
"When the Nazis came for the communists, I kept silent since I wasn't a communist. When they locked up social democrats, I was silent since I wasn't a social democrat. When they came for unionists, I did not protest since I wasn't a unionist. When they took the Jews away, I did not protest since I wasn't a Jew. When they took me away, no one was there any more who could protest."
If this is a religious issue for you, then love your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure your neighbor, gay or straight, would do the same for you.
Why are so many people up in arms about Proposition 2 in Texas (and in America)? Isn't it clearly unconstitutional to restrict the rights of any citizen ... and isn't this proposition clearly doing that? And on what grounds? ..... please, please, don't tell me religion. This has NOTHING to do with your own personal religious beliefs ... this is a state constitutional amendment, not church.
It is our obligation as citizens of this great country to fight to protect liberty and not to take it away- many people have died to protect the rights of citizens of this country. Are we honoring them with proper dignity by allowing the restriction of rights to a portion of citizens because we feel we are "holier than thou" enough to judge what rights get allocated to some citizens and not others?
Aren't the conservatives/republicans against strong government control anyway? Then why would they support this? In addition to this interest of many republicans, what about the economic implications: don't many companies give benefits in recognition of same sex parters? Some companies have already threatened not to build in Texas if this proposition is passed. This non-inclusive move would hurt the "Jesus for Big Business" campaign the Republicans are pushing right now.
The last Constitutional Amendment (although we are not voting to change THE Constitution, thank God!) that was written to take away rights and not protect them was the amendment for Prohibition ... and we all know what happened to that.
And here's the thing: If you don't want to be gay and get married to someone else of the same sex, great- good for you. You can choose to do that! And if your church chooses to marry two people of the same sex, you can choose to go to another church if you don't like it- its a free damn country. Remember that the church doesn't have to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to: Catholic churches don't recognize Baptist marriages (my parents had to get married twice so the catholic church would agree to baptize me), no churches recognize common law marriages, etc. BUT, the state should recognize and protect the rights of ALL people within the state, regardless of their religious beliefs (and they do so for people stuck in common law marriages).
And for those people that say that the allowance of gay marriages threatens the sanctity of marriage, listen up: the biggest threats to the sanctity of marriage are the temper, ego, psychological health, selfishness and sensitivity of the two people involved in the marriage ... and NOT the marriage of others.
Now there isn't much to say in defense of banning gay marriage unless you break out your bible ... and in that case, you've stepped outside the bounds of writing law (yes, believe it or not ... there are ideals that came before writing of the bible ... summed up by one of the greatest Americans of all times as "basic human rights"). No doubt, gay marriage will probably get banned in Texas (there are plenty of uneducated religious fanatics that can't understand the importance of separation between religion and law; like homer simpson says, "that's funny because its not me").. but it won't be constitutionally protected. Thank God for our Deist driven forefathers (yes, that's write, the constitution was written in terms of Deist ideals and not Christian- whether or not some of the writers were indeed Christians ). I love that about being American.
So when you get out to vote, today and in the future, think bigger. Think about all citizens ... what if the tables were turned and someone wanted to take away your rights based on their religious beliefs. Wouldn't you want them to say, "I believe XXX, but I won't impose my beliefs on you so that we can both live freely together in America."
When you begin to strip rights from citizens, you are climbing a slippery slope. If we can begin to allow for rights to be taken away from people, we are just beginning to "boil the frog" (if you don't know the story of how to boil a frog, look it up).
Here's a great quote to end with from Martin Niemoller about the effect of not acting when others rights are being taken away; even if it doesn't affect us:
"When the Nazis came for the communists, I kept silent since I wasn't a communist. When they locked up social democrats, I was silent since I wasn't a social democrat. When they came for unionists, I did not protest since I wasn't a unionist. When they took the Jews away, I did not protest since I wasn't a Jew. When they took me away, no one was there any more who could protest."
If this is a religious issue for you, then love your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure your neighbor, gay or straight, would do the same for you.
posted by Michael Pondrom at 6:23 PM
10 Comments:
Part 1:
"Why are so many people up in arms about Proposition 2 in Texas (and in America)?"
Because people want important social issues to be decided democratically and not by the Supreme Court.
"Isn't it clearly unconstitutional to restrict the rights of any citizen ..."
No, in fact, it isn't. It is unconstitutional to restrict any rights which are provided in the U.S. Constitution. There is no right to legal recognition of homosexual relationships in the Constitution.
"This has NOTHING to do with your own personal religious beliefs ... this is a state constitutional amendment, not church."
Interesting. So "separation of church and state" (which of course doesn't even appear in the Constitution) now means that individuals should not use their religious beliefs to inform their voting decisions? What if their religious beliefs told them that gay "marriage" should be legally required? Would that be okay with you? You are also ignoring the fact that many arguments against gay "marriage" are not specific to any particular religious tradition and could be considered quite secular reasons.
"It is our obligation as citizens of this great country to fight to protect liberty and not to take it away- many people have died to protect the rights of citizens of this country."
Ah yes... George Washington, Alvin York, General Patton, all marched under the rainbow colored banner of homosexual equality! Do you think that was what they were fighting for? Or do you think they would be horrified if they saw an episode of "Will and Grace"? I think the answer to that is obvious.
I'm enjoying the image of General Patton in a rainbow colored uniform right now, that's pretty funny...
(ducks gunshots from Dad)
Uh...Gotta go!!!
Michael
Part 2:
"Aren't the conservatives/republicans against strong government control anyway? Then why would they support this?"
Actually, wouldn't the small government solution be to not recognize gay "marriage"? Getting married subjects you to more government regulation and control. Besides, this is a state constitutional amendment, which is a wonderfully federalist solution.
"In addition to this interest of many republicans, what about the economic implications: don't many companies give benefits in recognition of same sex parters?"
It is not in my interest as an employee to have my employer subsidizing sodomy. Besides that, private companies are still free to do whatever they want. They can let every employee designate another person to receive benefits.
"This non-inclusive move would hurt the "Jesus for Big Business" campaign the Republicans are pushing right now."
I have no idea what this means.
"The last Constitutional Amendment (although we are not voting to change THE Constitution, thank God!) that was written to take away rights and not protect them was the amendment for Prohibition ... and we all know what happened to that."
Let's examine the similarities: 1) Prohibition - no historical precedent in anglo-american history, unpopular, disadvantaged a large portion of the population. 2) Maintaining the definition of marriage - maintains historical tradition from the beginning of time, wildly popular, "disadvantages" only a small number of people (homosexuals). Yep, I think the two situations will turn out exactly the same.
"And here's the thing: If you don't want to be gay and get married to someone else of the same sex, great- good for you. You can choose to do that!"
If only this were about "live and let live". But that's not what this is about. You talk about the "right" of homosexuals to get "married". Granting someone a right always implies that someone else has a corresponding duty. This debate is about whether other people should be forced to recognize homosexual relationships as being marriages. I am completely in favor of homosexuals' rights under the first amendment to say that they are married, and they are free to believe that all they want - but I do not believe that me, or the government using my tax dollars, should be compelled to recognize these relationships.
BTW...Part's 1 & 2 are courtesy of MJM.
FYI Nick.
Michael
Since name-calling seems to be the strategy of the day (stupid, racist, "uneducated religious fanatics"), we will dispense with parts 3 and 4 for a few short comments...
Things I have not said -
(1) Democracy always gets the best answer.
Because something is democratically decided does not make it morally correct. That is absolutely true.
My point is not that a popular vote makes anything okay. It is simply that the reason that people want to vote on this is because they are tired of contentious social issues being decided for them by people with very differnt values.
Nick's comment is a good example of this. He believes in a "living constitution". I prefer my constitutions dead.
Incidentally, I find the implication that I would support slavery, discrimination, etc., a little funny, considering my personal background and the fact that I have done real legal work on real civil rights cases.
(2) We should have religious law in the United States.
I fail to understand how continuing not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriage would be anything like establishing a national religion. What religion would we be establishing? The same religion as ancient Greece, modern Israel, China, and Russia? Every society in history has only recognized male-female relationships as marriage. It is difficult for me to see the definition of marriage as something that is peculiar to American Christianity.
Finally, you state that no individual will be forced to recognize homosexual relationships, but your examples are contradictory. "During the civil rights movement, prejudice whites said they didn't want to be "forced" to "eat in the same restaurant" or "go to the same bathroom" or "have my kids at the same school" as the other "colored" kids ..." What happened? The government legally forced individual Americans to recognize the equality of people of different races. We consider this an acceptable imposition, because we agree with the underlying principle, but it is government coercion nonetheless.
If we had state recognized gay "marriage", would I be forced to recognize homosexual relationships as an employer, as a landlord, as a litigant in private lawsuits? If you think laws regarding homosexual relationships should be similar to laws dealing with racial discrimination than you are asking the government to exert a strong amount of coercion over individuals.
Damn blogger... erased my whole response. That is half an hour I will never get back.
Let me leave it at this - gay marriage may seem like the revolutionary wave of the future, but it will go the way of the metric calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_calendar
Also, we should eliminate the laws that limit those medical visits to family.
Not to protect anyone's rights to see their "partner," but to allow loved ones to visit. I'm ever in the hospital. I want my pals to be able to visit me, too.
Marriage should be disolved on a legal level. It should be purely a religious/belief statement of commitment.
Everyone would maintain their own financial accounts. If spouse/partners chose that one should stay home, well, then start paying the spouse/partner that stays home for child care, housekeeping, etc. Because if you split up... What's his/hers is his/hers and what's hers/his is hers/his.
This would help eliminate all of those stupid divorce cases, sax tax dollars, simplify the tax laws, and create absolutely no social strife at all.
-Ray
Okay...time for me to chime in.
First, defenses. Mike is neither racist, nor stupid, nor evil. Linda is not stupid either, nor is she some crazy wacked out hippie. So just in case anyone is wondering.
To the anti-marriage side: Let's be honest people: it's almost assuredly your religious upbringing and values that make you stand against gay marriage. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe in gay marriage in the Catholic Church, either. There are specific qualities a marriage has to fulfill to be considered holy and a Sacrament in the Catholic Church, and I don't think they meet them. So to any religion that doesn't grant gay marriages...that's fine, more power to you. That’s your decision, and you have the right to make that.
But we're not talking about a religion here. We're talking about a state. I think the state would be the first to say there is nothing holy about what they are granting here. What is a state marriage? Basically, I see it as similar legally to making someone your agent or declaring them your heir. All you're doing when you get married by the state is saying, "This person knows me better than anyone in the world, and I trust them more than anyone in the world. They are my beneficiary, and if something goes wrong with me, they have a say in how I am treated."
Is the marriage between a man and a woman done at a drive thru window in Vegas holy? Of course not. You would be silly to say that it is. At best, it's two people who want the world to acknowledge that they mean something to each other. I have no problem with gay people being able to make that statement, either.
Homosexuality might be wrong. Every gay couple who gets married might be cast into the burning fires of Hell by God someday. But that's their decision: they have free will, and thus have the right and ability to make choices. The Catholic Church doesn't have to say that their union is holy. It won't. But as Linda pointed out, if I can name anyone--including Kyle, my best friend, and obviously a male--as my beneficiary on any of my insurances, why shouldn't a gay couple be able to do it?
I really think you two are arguing two separate issues here. Mike, don't think of a state marriage as a marriage, if that makes you feel better. Think of it as a civil union. It's a legal matter of naming someone as your agent. And that's all the gay population is asking for. They're not asking to be considered holy; I don't think they really care about that (correct me if I'm wrong please). They just want to have basic rights under the law that enables one person to legally recognize who they trust most in the world, and who they want to take care of/take of them if bad things happen. I don’t care what your orientation, genders, ages, whatever--anyone should be able to do that.
Oooohhh...you know what Barry, that's not a bad idea. Getting rid of marriage on a state level. I'm not saying I'm on board with that, but it's something to consider. Anything that would rid the world of defense attorneys is not a bad idea on principle in my book :-)
Michael
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I cannot fricking type today! I meant to say divorce attorneys, not defense attorneys.
I give up.
Michael
Post a Comment
<< Home