Friday, February 06, 2009
How Do You Feel About This?
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
There's a blog I read ... You've got to understand how this weighs on my heart (Why? God only knows...).
I know it's a manipulative emotional strategy. But it's effective. The same way Israeli and Palestinian parents can't help but perpetuate their hostility onto their children, I worry that Pro and anti Prop 8 folks are doing it, too, all in the sacred names of Love and Family.
Before this explodes, before people die (because what better reasons to give up your life, than for love?) - can we not come to an amenable arrangement?
I get that religious folks want to protect the institution of marriage - make marriage mean God and family, but just because we won the definition, doesn't end the sin.
(And quickly, let me just say that no one gets to throw stones, we all have our favorite sins)
I still say marriage is a religious arrangement and the government, state and federal, should not be involved with the who when whys or hows.
HOWEVER, the law should treat all people equally. Please PLEASE tell me if I've reverted, but, what would be wrong about allowing any two individuals interested in legally combining their assets, to sign the necessary contracts with one easy document? And just like I can't complain when some other church bestows the priesthood on a woman ... well, you follow my logic.
Like I tell my kids, maybe we should compromise.
At least my feet will be warm in hell...
Labels:
Change,
Gay Marriage,
Politics,
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
But what about MY family? My husband has been a member of our local First Christian Church for over 13 years. HE believes our marriage is about God and Family. Are WE included?
Not ALL Christians believe they are MORE worthy of civil rights than others; some embrace their gay and lesbian congregants as equals.
Also - marriage is NOT exclusively a religious institution, since many non-religious heterosexuals get married at the Justice of the Peace. So marriage is ultimately a CIVIL institution.
John stole the words out of my mouth...marriage between two men or two women is JUST AS MUCH about Love and Family and God as marriage between a man and a woman...
Thank you both for responding. I just think there is so little communication between people, both sides convinced they are Right, assuming they know everything about the other side, the whys and why nots, and we just sit, irritated at the closed mindedness of the other.
I want equal protection by law for all individuals. I don't want a dad to be kept out of his child's hospital room because the law refuses to validate the parental relationship.
I don't see either side as movable. There are people who will never be able to define marriage as anything besides a commitment between a man and a woman to God. There are couples of men and women, some with children involved, who deserve to have their commitment legally validated.
What I want for America, is to work around everyone's prejudices and short sightedness and make things work. The video is a powerful educational tool (MUCH more effective than the Mormon missionary commercial) to get Pro 8 people to see another, softer, personal side - not the temple storming, screw the democratic process bunch. It's the love, more than anything, that needs to be seen and understood. How do we fight love? why?
I guess I don't find the conflict involved in this topic. I wish everyone could just let people love who they love, marry each other, or not, and just move on with life. There is no right or wrong answer to this, it basically will always be an issue as long as people let it bother them on a deep level. Predjudice aside, does it really harm anybody? Can anyone prove that it is spiritually wrong?
I thought the video was so lovely that it brought tears to my eyes....I fervently wish marriage was a legal equal right nationwide to ALL individuals in this country.
It also reminded me of one of Olivia and my favorite songs, by Anna Stange (http://www.annastange.com/), her old music teacher, on her latest album, Songs for Peace and Justice. It goes something like "what would I do today, if I were brave?" IMHO, they are wise words to live by.
Oh, and just because I'm going to be a little sh-starter, I personally think that it's far worse that the octuplet mother has 14 kids under age 7 because she was 'desperate' to have children just because she felt lonely about her childhood and had a back injury. I think I also read that she wanted 'one more girl.' Those are not reasons to have 14 children with no visible means of support and no life partner to help raise them. Talk about bein unfair to your kids.
Okay, I have to weigh in. I understand that ideally for all side it would be great to have civil unions for the government and religious marriages for whoever that denomination wish to marry.
However that would/will take considerable time to accomplish. In the meantime, and with the system we have, marriage is not just a religious institution! Many people in this country marry without a religious officiant and their marriages are just as valid. We also don't make couples prove their fertility or even their desire to have children to be able to get married.
So I don't really understand how religion is used to explain why same sex couples can't marry in this country, with this system. Yes I understand the the arguments (sort of) but again religious leaders that don't agree with it don't have to perform the ceremonies. They can choose who they marry.
I guess overall I just believe that couples who want to commit to each other should be allowed to, no matter the sexual orientation.
You're right...to a point. But many of these things you describe are already possible by contract. Apart from some automatic death benefits, rights to wrongful death claims, and tax benefits, most of the social arguments like hospital visitation can be readily accomplished with a couple of pretty simple legal documents.
However, where I think you're wrong is when you say it's none of the government's business. The problem here is that this debate has been couched in terms of individual rights to marry. Marriage is not a civil right, but a governmental grant of certain privileges because of the status. The reason that government grants certain privileges tied to marriage is to encourage the behavior. It encourages the behavior because it has so many beneficial effects on society. It stabilizes society. It provides the best (not only) environment for having and raising children, etc. These arguments do not apply with the same force to homosexual relationships. There is a rational basis for the distinction. One borne out by long centuries of experience.
The homosexual community has made this about the label of "marriage" and about civil rights, as opposed to societal benefits, not because they necessarily want any benefits that the label conveys (most of which are already available), but because it seeks further normalization and societal acceptance of the behavior. We can argue about that til the cows come home. I happen to believe that acting on homosexual impulses is a sin and a vice that society is best off not normalizing (note, I didn't say we should criminalize it or discriminate against those who practice it). Others feel differently. But at bottom, I just don't think the brass ring the GLBT community is after is the label of marriage. It's wider than that.
Sorry I can't post by name but my job requires me to remain anonymous on public matters.
Thanks for reading & linking, Mrs. B. I'm happy to respond, but confess that I'm confused about what exactly you believe. First, I disagree with you that being gay is a sin. I also disagree with Anonymous that being gay is a behavior. Both imply that being gay is a compulsive, preventable act. Statistics on gay teens who commit suicide because of their marginalized place in society will tell you that they're not choosing to be gay, just as any gay person who spent years pretending in a heterosexual marriage before feeling courageous enough to live their true authentic self will tell you of the energy, deceit, and psychological trauma involved in suppressing what they, by nature, are for all those years.
Second, to me, the video we both posted is not a "manipulative emotional strategy". Rather, it's a portrayal of actual, healthy families who happen to be gay and I wonder if some might see it as false or manipulative b/c they're so afraid that after 'Yes on 8' prevailed, that after they listened to their church leaders, that after (God forbid) the CA Supreme Court overturns the legal married status of these families, they were wrong. Could it be that there's a tiny, gnawing fear among those who vote against equality for LGBT citizens that gay parents are exemplary parents, that being gay (again, not doing gay, b/c it's NOT a chosen behavior like smoking dope or molesting a child) IS normal? I wonder. After all, 'homosexuality' was a psychiatric disorder in the DSM until 1973 when years of studies of real, live, gay people proved otherwise. Who’s to say dominant culture doesn’t have it wrong still/again? They had it wrong on segregation, miscegenation – I could go on.
Third, I'm troubled by arguments about the institution of marriage being what it's been (between a man and a woman, the sanctity of it, etc, etc) for 5,000 years and so, therefore it must be right.. The definition of marriage has changed tremendously within our society, and is very different from the Judeo-Christian definition in many other parts of he world today. I read something recently that explained that in Biblical times, marriage existed solely for the acquisition/exchange of property (the woman being the property) and, until recently, husbands were still legally allowed to rape their wives in some US states. And in TIME magazine this week, there's a snippet about a 10 year old Yemeni girl who was just granted legal divorce from her middle-ages husband. So, what is the 'definition of marriage', actually, b/c it's certainly not some static truth that transcends centuries & cultures. The problem is not whether marriage should be between a man and a woman, but rather that in our country right now, some groups of people are deciding, through laws, what marriage should be for everyone else. And okay -- I get that we need laws to enforce order in society, etc.. We need laws against drunk drivers and murderers and money launderers. But gay people? This just takes me back to our fundamental disagreement about whether or not being gay is a sin, a behavior, a choice.
I do agree that peaceful dialogue needs to occur between the LGBT community and the anti-gay/pro-religion/what-have-you community. However, so far at least, the LGBT community has not tried to impose its morality on anyone else. The LGBT community has not mobilized to fund the most expensive referendum campaign EVER to take others' rights away.
Thank-you Anonymous! Nicely stated. Who are you, now I'm dying to know. Is this a common argument? I haven't heard others speak up for it before. I'm just wondering if there's a large group of people somewhere that agree on this. What do you think Mrs. B? I'm curious on your opinion of this opinion:)
Sorry - I didn't mean to post and not redress - went out of town.
Anonymous - marriage isn't a privilege the government grants, it's just a way of keeping track of people for tax purposes; it a set of legal contracts simplified.
From my point of view, engaging in any form of sex outside of marriage is a sin. Being gay is not a sin, in and of itself - I agree that it is likely a predisposition from birth and environmentally influenced as well.
The video - I don't mean to use the word "manipulative" negatively - but rather, it literally is calling for action - it makes me want to do something, and you can't deny that it is very emotional - I cry every time I watch it. Using loving images is a much more effective strategy to impact people who supported prop 8, to better get across WHY it is important for gay families to be protected. Those are the hearts the gay community has to change, otherwise it's a minority just validating itself and no change will be had.
Definition-wise, homosexuality is not unnatural, but it isn't normal (in that the majority of people participate in it).
I don't know how much point there is in examining what marriage WAS; we need to look at what it IS and why we need it, as it pertains to America, specifically.
My contention is that marriage is not simply a public display of love and commitment to another individual. Love is not the purpose of marriage. I went into my reasoning for no longer supporting gay marriage at the end of this post.
For me, marriage is totally a religious thing and I am offended that government and politics would try to step in and obfuscate the matter.
Some people are not religious about marriage; that's lovely, let them go to the courthouse and sign a contract to merge assets and authorities. Lots of homosexuals are religious - there are plenty of religious sects who have made their willingness to perform the ceremonies available. Some religions refuse to recognize such a union and call it marriage. That has to be ok, too.
About a hundred years ago, the state of Utah "divorced" my great grandfather from his plural wives. I have the journal of my great grand mother and how this effected her. I get it. The thing is, sometimes personal sacrifices must be made for the greater good.
"Who does it hurt?" is the favorite question to bandy around. It's hurting all of us. You want me to just give up a basic truth I hold sacred; I want you to give up the issue - it was settled democratically. It hurt when I went to church the Sunday after election day to find my church windows shot out, to see angry protesters blocking the way into the temple. It hurts me to see you in such pain, wishing I could make it better, make your hard life a little easier ...
But (always a but) - to me, and 52% of California (arguably our most liberal state), and 40/50 states in America, THE defining characteristic of marriage is not love, but a man and a woman.
What does the gay community want more - the legal protection or the word? The first is workable.
What do you all say?
By privilege I don't mean that government grants the privilege of marriage. Rather, government grants certain privileges based on marriage.
It's like hybrid cars. You can buy whatever kind of car you want. If you buy a hybrid, the government will give you a tax credit because the car is environmentally friendly and has wider societal benefits. If you buy a Hummer, enjoy driving it and paying for the gas, but government ain't helping. Thus, government grants a privilege because it values and wants to encourage a decision that benefits society more broadly. In order to do that, it has to set certain requirements for what qualifies. Does a hybrid Tahoe get it (better than a non-hybrid, but still not as good as a small commuter car, hybrid or not)? The Prius, however, has an unquestionably better benefits for society and gets the credit.
It's a crude example, but that is what I meant by privilege. Not like a drivers license kind of privilege.
I believe government should encourage marriage between one man and one woman because it conveys great benefit on society and promotes stability, etc. Not because it's someone's civil right.
Got it, much clearer. Agreed.
I realize that I'm beating a dead horse here, but there was a message on my facebook page asking for people to weigh in on this issue :-) There should be some other means of granting the privelages and responsibilities shared by married couples to same sex couples. It doesn't have to be marriage. I'd prefer that government not be involved in marriage in any form. We need some sort of legal partnership that protects shared children, assets, and power of attorney as easily and cheaply as marriage.
The true issue, as I see it, is more about individual choice and responsibility vs. government responsibility. When the laws are too specific and too numerous the prevailing way of thinking becomes, "If it isn't against the law then it's ok." We as a society need to move away from more laws and more definitions and simply care for our own little portion of the planet. If we all tended our own gardens and let our neighbors tend theirs we'd get along much better and also strengthen and improve the products of our own homes.
So many people act in fear. "If it's against my beliefs it shouldn't be allowed. Our families will crumble if other families are different. If the government doesn't define families pretty soon people will be married to goats and producing hybrid kids..."
There is a religious commandment that predates Christianity (and possibly even predates monotheism) that states: Do no harm. When a group is singled out, discriminated against, legislated against, and preached against you certainly do harm.
I feel as conflicted as you do Mrs. B. I have the exact same view of homosexuality. I think it's a combination of genetic predisposition and environment. I'm still trying to resolve my feelings with how our church stands on this issue. If you go to the church website, you'll see many of the same points that anonymous made. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with any couple being able to go to the Justice of the Peace and legalize their union. The question is will they be happy with that, or will they want a marriage from whichever church they hold some belief with. What if that church doesn't want to grant such a union? Will we then see church's taken to court for discrimination in not granting that union. On the other hand (I think I'm on my third hand), churchs are currently allowed to marry whomever they choose, so maybe this isn't a valid argument. And this is why I'm conflicted and confused and saddened by the bitterness this debate causes.
I have a lot of opinions on this issue, but the main thing that I stick to is discrimination. Whatever your religious beliefs may be, you can't give one member of this country a right and deny it for another member. You can't say everyone can get married, but you gay people can't. And offereing up visitation rights to the hospital or insurance coverage is NOT good enough. That's discrimination by the government. EQUALity is what our government should be striving for. And the bible is not our government.
You know interracial marriage used to be illegal too.
And arguing about the term marriage vs civil union is uneccessary since the government hadns us MARRIAGE certificates. So that's what every one should get.
I don't think we should be fighting about this. I don't understand why people can be so angry about what is happening in someone elses bedroom.
I think what bothers me the most with a lot of the arguments against gay marriage is their similarities to the arguments for slavery.
Anonymous had to end the argument for why we can't change marriage with this statement "there is a rational basis for the distinction. One borne out by long centuries of experience." Do you realize that that was one of the big statement on why the black slaves couldn't be freed? They too, believed that there was a "rational basis for the distinction" between the races, that there was a difference based solely on the color of skin.
The pro slavery side would vehemently quote the bible on why slavery was an institution that was good and should be continued. They would use the laws of Moses which had instructions on the treatment of slaves. Deuteronomy and Leviticus mention slaves. Even Paul speaks of the duty a slave owes it's master.
The pro slavery side also argued that we could not free the slaves because of the dangers to society and the family. Yes sometimes they were speaking about the financial institution of slavery, but they also stressed how dangerous this is in general. Who knew what influence the free blacks might have on future generations.
Yet despite these arguments, even the biblical ones, there are VERY few people who would even consider that we should go back to allowing slavery. So how are these same arguments valid now, but not then?
Yes I understand that to some this is a very strongly held religious belief. However that does not make it a fair and just belief. And moreover I don't think we can be certain that this is what God wants. Look at this quote by Bob Chell, University Lutheran Center. South Dakota State University, 1996-OCT-10:
"In the Bible, the ones who were most certain about what they were doing were the ones who stoned the prophets."
Those religious leaders strongly believed that they were protecting not only their religion but the whole basis of society.
Alright that's probably enough from me, but I just have to add two more quotes just for thought before I post this.
Mother Teresa
If you judge people, you have no time to love them.
and
Lynn Lavner: "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
I'm tired of the same old statements and questions. For example:
-The age-old debate over whether you're born gay, your childhood "made" you gay, or if being gay is something you throw on like buying a hybrid. Answer: Being gay is not a choice. It's not something you shop for in a car lot. It's not something you can help. It's the way you are born, similar to race or gender. No one makes you gay. How do I know? First off, ask yourself, "who would choose this?" Second off, I know this because I'm gay, and have been all my life.
-One-man One-woman marriage is "great benefit to society".
I'm sure in many families it is. For 50% of these marriages, not so much. My partner and I will be adopting our children from the foster care system, something we could never financially and logistically afford to do as singles. But you're right--my "marriage" has no benefit to society. Now you see why I'm offended.
-Government has no place in marriage.
This statement I agree with. Unfortunately, government does have a place in marriage, inluding the 1200+ rights and benefits afforded to married couples that are often taken for granted. That leaves two options:
A. Allow all couples, gay and straight, to enter a civil union that grants government rights and benefits, and let churches marry whomever they choose; or
B. Let everyone marry one person of their choosing--equality for all.
So many points to address ... thank you all so much for your comments. I should conduct email dialogues with all of you ... I wish we could all sit down, on national radio (I only have a face for radio) and figure out the best solution for everyone.
I've been hashing this out for over 16 of my 30 years and I am the only person I know who has changed their mind about it, and I left the minority.
This is not about a bigoted religious majority suppressing the homosexual minority freedoms. That is a very shallow interpretation.
This is not about who and how you can have sex - marriage is NOT primarily about sex.
Marriage is not an unlimitable right - you've got minors, polygamists, close relatives - and homosexuals.
All those folks can engage in marriage-like activities all they want, it's not illegal (or is it? consensual incest? I'm not a lawyer); the government isn't peeping into your bedrooms (much - maybe if you're a prostitute).
Look, my main point is, I don't think that the majority is going to change their minds. This was voted on in numerous states.
The important thing is having all the same legal protection for your partner and any children living in the home as a heterosexual married couple (which is what I support), BUT the voting majority, for their own personal and valid reasons, refuse to recognize a gay partnership as a "marriage" - well, then, if the equal legal rights are the key, you're going to have to call it something besides marriage.
Protest all you want. If the gayest (is that offensive? state with the densest population of homosexuals), most liberal state in the union insists on a traditional definition, via the democratic process ... well, you have to admit a homosexual family is not, strictly speaking, traditional ... maybe it does need a new term.
Rather than stretching a word to mean what you want, causing it's real meaning to become vague and meaningless, find a new term, more accurate.
Marriage is not defined by love.
I have to point out that if you look at the history of this country, 'the founding fathers' did not intend for 52% of the people to decide the rights for the other 48 (the numbers in California's election). That's why voting in the senate and house were designed the way they were.
Also the whole idea of putting a proposition on a ballot that limits a groups rights is inherently WRONG. How about we put a ballot taking away someone else's rights and as long as 51% vote yes, were good right?
That's not equality.
Going back to my comparison, the abolitionists were in the minority. the majority supported slavery, but it was still wrong!
I also looked up Prop 8, and when you say majority, yes it was enough to win the election, but you are talking about a less then 5% difference. That is awfully close to a half and half split, not a unanimous win.
Even so, you would need a 2/3 majority to inact a change. The traditional definition is on the books, do you see a time when 66% of the state (citizens or reps) will vote to change the definition?
Also, slave owners stood to loose financially if slavery was abolished. Heterosexual marriages are not voting based on financial motives - it's rational, moral motives. We are a much more educated society then we were ... it is not greed and it is not ignorance that made 52% of Californians vote as they did, which is what you seem to be indicating.
Mrs. Roth, I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
You say marriage is not defined by love--shouldn't it be defined by nothing else?
You say that as the majority's vote should prevail, so long as its motives are "rational and moral". Whose morals? Why do we have to have rights taken away because your moral vote says so? My morals say equal rights for all; doesn't that count? Majority belief doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter if it was greed and ignorance or not--the point is that their vote shouldn't decide my rights.
I agree it was not greed that made 52% of Californians vote for Prop. 8, but I do think it was ignorance. It was also hate, fear, discrimination, and judgemental idiocy (sorry, I really do try not to use words like idiot, but once in a while- it is what it is).
Most of us agree that homosexuality is a function of biology rather than choice. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay? The consequences of being gay far outweigh any positive value that "choice" would bring.
During my time working in the 4-H program I've had to deal on six separate occasions with suicidal teens during camps, conventions, and leadership activities. Every single time it was a teen with a sexual identity crisis. 5 of the 6 teens were Mormon and they truly believed their church. They worked so hard to turn away from their attraction to people of the same sex that when it didn't work they believed the only "choice" left to them was whether or not to live.
I am married to a Mormon and I have so much respect for him and his family that I have avoided truly speaking my mind. Always, I try to be tactful, to speak around the issue, to be respectful of the fact that not all of us believe the same way (attempt I said, tact really isn't my strength).
This active agenda against gay marriage is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is discrimination. It is ignorance. It is sometimes hate. It is definately harmful to society to continue trying to further discriminate against people who are biologically different than we are.
Marriage is not about love, you are correct in that assertion. It is about raising children (for those who choose to do so). It is about protection of property. It is about legal responsibility towards your partner. There is no good arguement to deny the protections and privelages of marriage to committed couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It does not endanger my marriage or my family if homosexuals marry too. It does not hurt me. It does not hurt my children. It does not hurt society to be compassionate and grant every human being dignity and equal legal standing.
Amy is absolutely right in her assertion that abolitionists were not in the majority. It's a sad truth that the only reason slavery was abolished was because of economic envy and not moral correctness. Just because a very, very slim majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman does not make that a morally correct definition.
The video that started this blog is an attempt to put a human face on an issue that is being debated in the abstract. These are real human beings, real families - being discriminated against.
Jenn,
First off, I don't think you have any idea how much I appreciate your willingness to have a dialogue about this topic. I hope you (and everyone else) know that I am not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful - I want to understand, come to an understanding, if at all possible. So thank you so much for the time, thought, and energy it takes to reply.
Secondly, I wrote out my personal criteria and purpose for marriage here (at the bottom). I'll post it separately.
I used to think marriage was about love; love being the pre-requisite, the defining characteristic. Now, I realize love is actually what I should feel for every person on the face of the earth, without exception (I'm working on it ...).
Finally, should I be voting in favor of things just because people want to do them, with no respect to my moral judgment? Am I not entitled to personal moral opinion?
It is NOT based on hate. It might be based on ignorance, but BOTH sides are ignorant - refusing to understand the other side ... because what if you are wrong? So both sides plug there ears and yell.
I would contend that, on the issue of gay marriage, I am not ignorant nor afraid.
I see no reason to change the meaning of a word to make it fit something it's not. Marriage is a man and a woman coming together to make babies. Sure, not every marriage makes babies, you can make babies without marriage, without a man if you have a sperm bank handy, but arguably the best way to ensure the survival of the species and civilization is for men and women to commit to each other to raise the children they create.
If your relationship doesn't fit the definition, it's not marriage. I know you love your partner, I know you are totally committed to provide for him or her for the rest of your lives and your commitment needs the same legal protection mine does, for some of the same reasons, maybe exactly the same reasons.
But (always a but) the heterosexual coupling transcends a homosexual coupling (though don't you wonder how much more, mmmm, something, sex would be if the people involved were more familiar with the function of the tools and such?) - heterosexuals are able to bring about new life. Their commitment perpetuates the species in a balanced and (can I say it) natural way - it is not just beneficial, but necessary. That is what marriage is. That and only that.
Sorry.
I can support protecting gay couples through a civil union, their commitment is real. But I'm not going to call it a marriage.
I'm not saying the reasons may not be different, I'm just saying that having a majority does not make a belief right, fair, or just.
The fact is you shouldn't be voting on wheter gays should be getting married. It shouldn't be UP TO YOU. If rights are given to some, then they should be given to all. Not based on yours or anyone else's discretion.
Whatever you define marriage as is really unimportant. It's about rights. Not civil union for som, marriage for tohers. Not white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains.
Gay marriage is not like racial segregation, it's more like Mormon polygamy.
Marriage is not a limitless right. We, the people, make up the government, therefore, WE determine how to limit rights according to the best interests of society, as we see it. Even if I wanted to, I can't get to share my husband with a sister-wife (maybe she would clean the house while I blog all day); 13 year olds can't get hitched even if they can make babies; and two men can't be married even if they really really REALLY love each other because they don't meet the basic requirements of marriage. At least until the majority of American say otherwise.
All rights have limits and requirements as determined by the majority.
I advocate all couples wishing to legally join their lives be required to obtain a civil union contract, as issued by the government - forcing the government out of the marriage business entirely (not separate drinking fountains).
I see a compromise as the only way to resolve this issue.
Are you really justifying taking someone's rights away because you feel your rights have been taken away (i.e. plural marriage)? How's that just? And our government is not just suppost tobe about what the majority (52%) wants. You can't infringe on the rights of others.
And comparing gay marriage to marriage to a minor? Consenting adults vs a child? I feel like it's hard to have a discussion when you make comparisons like that.
Post a Comment