You know that sick feeling you get when you know damn well you are going to have to go up to the pulpit and bear your testimony and you're going to cry like a baby and no one will even be able to understand you, but there really is no other choice??
That's how I feel right now.
I broke one of the rules of bloggy etiquette yesterday and left links in a comment on Dad Gone Mad (and now I feel obligated to buy his book, and you should,too. It's just $10; he's funny.)
So today I've had over a hundred hits here, mostly to my Marriage Defined post of, wow, just 3 months ago, feels like longer.
It's a hot topic. It's an important topic. It has no effect on me and yet SO much effect on me.
Someone, any old one - I'm tired of the Why Are You For or Against Gay Marriage arguments.
Tell me, why not UNIVERSAL Federal Civil Unions? Not separate fountains or back doors, dammit. I mean sweeping changes and equality before the law. Why not?
We don't live in Utopia, ladies and gentlemen and we ALL know the problem lies with the interwoven connectedness between religion, marriage, and government. Most people would like to keep church and state out of the same bed, but in marriage ... the bed is the thing!!! I think you will never never get a majority to see marriage as not religious. So go the other way, take government out.
Why not? Why doesn't this work? Stick to the issue, not for or against gay marriage ... why not civil unions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
I'll jump in.
I believe that there is an important difference between the social institutions of marriage and that of civil unions, and that's why I support equal MARRIAGE rights and not just equal recognition of relationships.
Because the word marriage is more than just a word, it's a social institution that carries with it great meaning and substance. When you say you are married that relationship gets an automatic level of respect and recognition, and I don't just mean the legal kind, that many people crave. Especially people who've been told they can never have it. Marriage is also a public declaration by a couple of their commitment and love for each other. We are social beings whose reality is shaped and defined by our relationships to each other so the words and meanings we assign to those relationships are incredibly important.
I agree with Becky.
I also think the problem is that in this country we don't have civil unions. When we go to get married. We file the governments paper work for a Marriage Licence. So yes I suppose the government could change all of this to civil unions but I can also see the hurt this would cause the gay and lesbian community. I can't imagine how it would feel to know that the only way people would let you and your partner be legally together is if it all was changed from marriage to a civil union because it made them feel more comfortable.
Besides what would that really accomplish? You would still get married in your church and call yourself married and so would many gay and lesbian couples, because there are still many churches that currently perform religious ceremonies joining same sex couples in gods eyes and they would continue to do so. In the end you would still have same sex marriages.
What is the difference in the end results to you, I just don't understand?
I agree with Becky and Amy - they are both right on the money.
I used to propose that solution myself, but it really seems like more of a frame in the thought process towards accepting marriage equality than a feasible policy. Amy is right - what exactly does it accomplish? It’s not like we are going to abolish the word marriage from our secular language. It means something very deep, and it isn’t going anywhere.
If a policy like this would make the people who are uncomfortable with gays getting married happy, then I could maybe see it as a step worth taking; but a few points. First, I think that many, if not most people who are against gay marriage are also against gay civil unions. Second, I can see Amy’s point about how it would feel knowing that you were the kid who acted up and cost the entire class their recess. Lastly, this would cause a lot of unhealthy resent towards the gay community. Not healthy for society in general.
From a peacemaking standpoint, I totally agree with what you propose – it is logical and fair. But it also is a 100% semantic solution to something that is only about a 90% semantic problem. It seems that the other 10% is the part that most people are less willing to budge on, and that’s their fear, misgivings and prejudices towards homosexuality in general. A policy like this would probably just make that 10% swell to a much larger number.
Honestly, I’d love to see somebody make a legislative proposition like this. Not because I think it would come to pass, but the uproar it would cause among married people might really bring what is being asked for into a more narrow focus for a lot of folks…
Okay, I'm a conservative here and I want to just add my 2 cents...
answering to Becky's statement of:
The word marriage is more than just a word, it's a social institution that carries with it great meaning and substance"--
the reason it gets an "automatic level of respect and recognition" is because the very nature of marriage between a man and woman is the divinity that is innate in the sanctity of it. Because the marriage covenant was created at the hands of God, it is not maleable. It is what it is...Mrs. B. you hit the nail on the head--men can change the rules to their own games, sure--but when God is the Author of an ordinance, only He can alter the rules of such game. Just my 2 cents.
Momza, so you are against Gay marriage - OK. I have two questions, though:
1. Do you support Brandy's proposition of preserving marriage as a religious institution and replacing its state representation with universal civil unions?
2. Are you for separation of church and state?
I understand your arguments, but I'm just curious...
If we allowed Civil Unions what would that mean for the kids? I mean, I want society to reinforce heterosexual unions because I want more babies to be born in America:) And I also want babies adopted into families with a mommy and a daddy.
I recognize that marriage is an important religious right for many people, but that is not its only social role. If that were the case then non-religious people wouldn't feel the desire or pressure to become married. But marriage carries with it respect and recognition that comes from non-religious people as well because it is still an important relationship and role for them. For me, marriage is not a God-ordained institution but rather a social institution that we get to create and define for ourselves and each other. Because it is socially defined, that means it is malleable and can (and has) change over time and place.
Ok,
Here is my two cents (probably more like one cent, but whatever..)
I am kind of on the opposite spectrum of everyone.
I dont know why we are limiting this discussion to gay and straight couples.
Why are we only recognizing relationships that are sexual in nature?
Why not offer the civil union option to any two adults who chose to have a relationship?
For example..
I am single and so is my brother. Let's say we both stay single into our 40s or later. Why can't we have a civil union so that I can put him on my health insurance and we can file taxes jointly?
Or maybe, if my dad were to die, why can't I have a civil union with an elderly mother, so that she can be on my insurance and we can buy a house together with our combined income, credit scores, etc?
Or two friends? Or any combination at all?
What do you think?
True enough, Lori Ann. We could just ask, why give special rights and privileges to married couples at all? If marriage is a religious or personal or social choice then why should it come with special tax rights and health insurance? Why not just make those rights available to all adults? A whole ' nother discussion.
Marriage, historically, has always been a patriarchal institution designed to protect men's property and interests and that disregards women's interests and rights. For example, as recently as 25-30 years ago, domestic violence cases were rarely taken seriously by anyone in criminal or divorce courts. (And I know this from personal experience as well as research.)
Also, if the union of one man and one woman is so holy, then why so many examples of polygamy in the Bible....Abraham anyone? Plus, what about people in hetero marriages who finally come clean that they are indeed gay? (I know a few people in that situation.)
I am troubled by the idea of Christian people getting all up in arms and exclusionary on this issue....I mean WWJD? I don't think he would send anyone away.
Basically, this goes back to what Becky is saying--marriage as we know it is an invented social institution that is indeed quite malleable. And I say love is love is love, and why turn people away who are clearly trying to (visibly, publicly) create families together.
Finally, there's a NY Times article about Brandy's position. If anyone is interested, it's at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=gay%20marriage%20a%20compromise&st=cse
Answer to Ben:
1- I am against Gay marriage. Civil Union would not satisfy the Gay Community unless it mimicked the marriage covenant identically, so I wonder if you'll find a line at the court house for civil unions?
2-Separation of Church and State: Age-old dilemma...if we toss out "IN GOD WE TRUST" then where does that leave us?
Where do we find our moral core?
Just b/c there are those who don't see marriage as a religious ordinance doesn't mean it isn't one. One simply cannot take God out of this equation and hope to observe the hallowness of the union. It isn't the same. In my mind, it's like comparing sugar to saccharin. Saccharin is a sugar substitute...tastes almost like the real thing, but has that lingering aftertaste that tells you, it's not the real thing.
Katie – I can see your concern as valid if you feel that homosexuality was something that could be enforced or even promoted. I’m here to sincerely tell you that it isn’t something that you can decide to be because you saw it on a commercial or even because an admired role model is gay. It just isn’t – really and truly. What life experience have you had that makes you think it is? Could you please explain that to me?
I’m not saying that you aren’t really concerned about this – you truly seem to be; but I often wonder if the expression of specific arguments like these aren’t just stand-ins behind which are hidden a more general intolerance of gay people. In other words, you can’t be called a bigot for saying “I’m thinking about the kids”, but you certainly could for saying “I’m tired of having to deal with gay people. I’m sorry that your families are being denied basic civil rights, but can’t you all just disappear back into the closet? It would make my world so much easier to reconcile. Thanks!”
“But marriage carries with it respect and recognition that comes from non-religious people as well because it is still an important relationship and role for them.”Becky is right. You can’t assume or insist that everyone has the same frame of reference as you do, and that words like marriage or God mean exactly the same things to you as they do to others. They most certainly don’t! They vary widely from faith to faith, let alone from person to person. You need to consider and assume that regardless of the specifics of how these words are parsed into implications by somebody else, their meanings are no less significant.
I think Baby Olivia is right on, too. WWJD? I don’t think he would turn people away who were trying to create families. I think he’d be much more concerned with love and compassion than he would be with words.
Now Moses – he’s more of a hard nose…
Right on, Ben!
Seriously, I think it's about the visibility, the public acknowledgment of gay people and the legitimacy of their relationships that drives some of the opposition to this issue. And it just isn't fair, IMHO.
This year is the 30th anniversary of Stonewall. And yet while it is definitely cause for celebration.....sometimes it just saddens me to think how much more needs to be done.
But at least we have people continuing to push the buttons on this issue.
Catherine
PS. Since when is sexual orientation a qualification for being a parent? There are plenty of gay people who had kids in hetero relationships before coming out---think of the ex-Governor of New Jersey, for example. My own cousin is gay; and divorced; AND has two kids.
For a gay couple to use a surrogate to have a baby is just as legitimate as when an infertile hetero couple does so--hello Sarah Jessica Parker?
And incidentally, the Chicago tribune recently had a huge article on how the Catholic Church is against infertility treatments for ALL couples---how absurd is that!?!
A total side note, but "In God We Trust" was only added to American currency during the Civil War.
More to the religious argument, our nation was founded on secular principles. Our country's very existence and continuance is a testament that we don't have to live in a theocracy in order to be moral/ethical human beings.
Laws are moral code. This goes back to the whole previous discussion of WHY the concept of majority rule/ minority rights is so important. The founding fathers KNEW this would not be the most speedy, effective way to run a government. It slows things down on purpose, so the few are not trampled by the many. It was a moral choice to create this structure. Yet, for some reason I don't recall which book of the Bible details the establishment of a democracy.
Basically, my simple point is that of course people can be moral without following any particular religion.
Ben,
I promise I don't dislike gay people and I'm not sick with "dealing" with them--honestly, I don't even know what that means.
But, I know that a homosexual union cannot produce babies. While I can't predict whether heterosexual unions make babies, it has the potential. So, by encouraging heterosexual unions, we're encouraging more babies--that's my logic for incentivising heterosexual unions and treating it as something special--it is special because it's the only kind of union that has the potential to make babies. I hope that helps you see where I'm coming from.
Katie - it's not technically true that heterosexual couples are the only ones capable of producing offspring ANYMORE. Science and fertility technology no longer make it necessary for a man and woman to come together to make life.
Like it or not, that's reality. Assuming you do like babies, you would have to double support lesbians who both get inseminated. They are capable of reproducing twice as often as a hetero couple.
But something tells me you don't really support that.
On a side note: The world is very overpopulated. There are many, many children available for adoption and/ or foster care all over the world and within the US. Also, folks from the US use and waste more resources than people of any other nation.
If this nation is moving towards more global responsibility, which it seems it is since the presidential re-election, this is a thing to be considered, especially if procreation is being used as an argument against the rights of citizens.
Sorry Brandy, I realize we were supposed to stick to "civil unions." I disagree with the idea because firstly, I don't see "marriage" as primarily the territory of religion.
To be married in the past people didn't even need ANY kind of ceremony, religious or otherwise. They just agreed to it. And as pointed out many times, marriage has been more of a business/ property arrangement than a sacrament for the majority of human history.
Also I'm skeptical that calling something by a different name is going to change the underlying reality. Are "enhanced interrogation techniques" really different than "torture"? Isn't it just a rhetorical game meant to justify unjust treatment?
On the flip side, if there was no other way, and I HAD to give up calling myself "married" so others could have the same rights I do, I would. Would we also have to give up calling each other husband or wife? Where do we stop rewriting the language?
In the end I'm afraid it would merely support the unfair premise that some people (religious ones) get to be "special" and be "married" while all the rest of us, no matter how good, no matter how loving to our spouses, are relegated to second-class status.
Hearts and minds are what really need to change, not words.
Why is everyone ignoring my idea? It is the perfect solution.
No marriage.
Any two adults that want one, can get a civil union. That is fair to all races, ethncities, genders, religions, shapes, sizes, handicaps, etc.
When we make it about a sexual relationship we are discriminating against all of those people who want to be in a union, but not one based on sex. (see my previous comment for examples)
I guess I am saying let's not just open the door a tiny bit and let hetero and homosexual couples have marriage or civil unions...
Let's kick the door open and let ANY two consenting adults have a civil union.
What argument could anyone possibly have against that?
Sorry to have to remain anonymous on this issue, Brandy. I just don’t want to get flamed for this comment. Here’s the thing, I’m a huge gay right’s supporter. I have several close friends who are gay. I want them to have the same chance for a happiness as I do. However, I still feel more comfortable with there being a distinction between hetero-marriages and gay marriages, even if it’s just in a name.
I guess I’m afraid of what will happen to society if homosexuality becomes completely accepted and viewed as normal. If coming out is no longer a difficult and heart wrenching experience, will more people choose to be gay? And if so where does that leave all the single women in the world who would like to be married? There is already a huge surplus of single women to single men. I know you say that homosexuality is not a choice, and I believe that for the majority of people it truly is not, but do you think there is any validity to the Kinsey Scale? He suggests that everyone falls on a scale of 0-6 where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 6 is exclusively homosexual with varying degrees in between. I suspect that currently most homosexuals are 5 or 6’s on the scale. They didn’t choose to be gay. They’ve chosen to live the life style because it is the only way for them to ever be truly happy. But what if the choice was EASY, what if it required no sacrifice at all? Would people who could potentially be happy with a member of the opposite sex (the 3’s and 4’s on the scale) be more likely to choose homosexuality for all kinds of reasons? I recognize that this way of thinking may be misguided, and I’m definitely open to a gentle correction, but this is my concern.
Also, someone made a comment in one of your previous posts saying that any consenting adults should have the right to be married. And to that I have to ask, does there need to be a limit to how many people can enter into a marriage? Or what about siblings, cousins, or fathers and daughters marrying? If marriage is all about love and “love is love is love” then no boundaries or conditions should apply. Please don’t roll your eyes and groan that this is the same tired and irrelevant argument as suggesting that someone could marry there dog. I think this is a valid point. I think most of us can agree that certain conditions should be met, that marriages are about more than just (sigh) love (as poetic as it sounds to think otherwise.)
Great idea, Lori. Although I wish you hadn't used you and your brother as an example, that kind of made me feel a little sick inside. I guess I'm kind of a bigot when it comes to incest.
Can I just say that this discussion is actually fun and respectful and nice? Thanks, bloggy friends.
I'm right there with you Lori Ann, but once we start down that road I end up at "why do we even need civil unions, then?"
My partner and I are getting married (three months, woot!) in the US, but we have honestly discussed the fact that if we stayed in New Zealand we might not get legally married. Because here our legal and practical rights are not tied to marriage. Meaning that we had no trouble with joint bank accounts, insurance, etc. even though we're not married. If I become disabled my partner is my medical representative because I filled out a form declaring that, not because we stood up and read our marriage vows.
So why not make those rights just available to everyone and leave marriage or civil unions out of the equation completely?
You probably can't find another blog anywhere that has discussed this as respectfully, yet passionately!
Thank you all so very much.
Why, my dear anonymous, is it that those in favor of traditionally defined marriage, which is the voting majority and was agreed to by the California State Supreme Court, and The President Himself - why do we have to hide behind anonymity? It's okay - I'll take the hits, what's the worst they can do? Call me a narrow minded, hypocritical, ignorant, fanatical, unAmerican fool? Sticks and Stones.
And why are those in favor of gay marriage free to be so bold as to insult me for holding a hard won, yet opposing opinion?
I want there to be contracts, I want the rights and responsibilities made clear to protect couples and children, whatever the configuration. I'm working on my Civil Union Magnum Opus, friends. Look for it Monday or Tuesday. It's my homework.
MOST IMPORTANTLY!
If you have any more points to throw out specifically addressing why taking government out of marriage entirely and establishing a universal civil union is unacceptable, please make it known. I am not suggesting we can or will do away with marriage in word or practice or try to change, expand, or contract what marriage is. I'm saying the government ought not be involved - marriage is defined uniquely by each couple who enter there-in, for most, even if just for that day at church or on the beach before a pastor - marriage is a religious rite and THEREFORE government has made a terrible error by having a hand in it at all. That mistake can be rectified by the establishment of Universal Civil Unions, which would be the easy way for any individuals to combine assets, responsibility, and authority for one another and any children they may be responsible for, without respect to race, religion, sex, (but let's keep and age limit, okie dokie?)
Tell me now, why not!
Has anyone actually read the New York Times article that I suggested?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=gay%20marriage%20a%20compromise&st=cse
It echoes Brandy's point that civil unions should be allowed. I highly recommend it.
For the record, if that's what happens, I am for it, sign me up. But then you would get the legal conundrum like that in CA--what do you do with all the people already married? Do you grandfather them in? Universal Civil Unions are not as neat and clean as they might seem. And it doesn't really eliminate gay marriage because while there are plenty of churches that do not perform same sex weddings, there are those that do (I mean, my friends got married with an internet minister!).
So why deny people the happiness of calling their beloved partner their spouse?
Plus, same-sex partnership 'marriage' is not even a new phenomenon.....in the 19th century it was so common among women that it actually had a name...'Boston marriage.'
I lived with my husband for 8 and 1/2 years before we got married. Why did I wait so long? Because I did NOT want to be married, in the traditional sense. It was only when I was able to figure out how to do it on my own terms that I signed up....and I refused to get married Catholic because of the Church's statement opposing same-sex marriage. My wedding invitations even used the wording "please join us to celebrate the couple's commitment to each other." I was asked what kind of 'ceremony' it would be!
If I had the choice (i.e., lived in a nation where I had the same rights regardless of status), I would choose NOT to be married. But marriage, as so many have pointed out, confers all kinds of benefits.
Plus, my husband is an atheist. I think he flatters me to say that he believes in God 'a little,' but he is strongly against the interference of religion in any part of his private life. And I agree with him entirely and will support his decisions.
So I'm not sure where that leaves us, other than my chosen path: to live and let live, and celebrate people who want to express their love and commitment to each other.
Another option would be to do what some states have done...require all states to extend domestic partner benefits to all couples, homo and hetero. My sister lived in Madison, WI for a few years and got coverage on her boyfriend's policies that way.
But doesn't that lead us all too close to socialism?
Catherine
One of the number one reasons people have against gay marriage is that why get married if you can't have kids.
Well, guess what? My husband and I can't have kids. Completely unexplained zero sperm count.
And guess what else? We had kids. Via anonymous sperm donation.
In the process, my two daughters (who have different donors) have SEVERAL half siblings being raised in lesbian homes. Hopefully, my girls will grow up to know their sibs and not have a whole lot of prejudice toward their extended families, despite their religious upbringing.
The argument that if gay becomes the norm (which, frankly, it already has)that more people will choose to be gay is dumb. You don't choose to be gay.
I don't care if they call it "marriage" or "civil unions", gays have a fundamental right to their pursuit of happiness.
My biggest problem is that you can't separate church and state on this issue. Obviously people have different religious views (or non-religious views), and unfortunately just being tolerant of behavior one doesn't condone isn't good enough. The reason why is because once the law passes that gay marriage is acceptable, the law also makes us teach it in our state run schools. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. I may tolerate other people's choice to be together, but in my view it is morally wrong, and I don't want my children being taught that it is right. Yes, my kids will be attending public school. Well, some would say home school your child or go private, but I honestly think public school is the only option for most Americans. Where is the line drawn on what is forced upon our kids? Here is a video of it happening already in Massachusetts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHWBWSaW-4&feature=related
So who's to say it won't or can't happen elsewhere?
I'm also not saying that a couple can't teach their child what they want, but it needs to be done in the appropriate place with parental consent. If parents want to teach their child that gay marriage is o.k. that's fine for them, but it shouldn't be forced on people's kids that don't want it taught. If marriage were separate from state, then the state shouldn't have the right to force it in schools? Furthermore, why is gay marriage being taught with no parental notification? Schools have to notify parents for sex ed, so why not on gay marriage?
If the issue were just civil unions for all, and marriage within one's own church it could be pretty cut and dry, but that isn't the only consideration.
I think we need to be careful when we see things like this video. When people start to get scared, they pull extremes out of the closet to scare you, too. First of all, I think most of us would all agree that mature concepts like marriage have no place as primary curriculum in a second grade classroom. What second grade teacher do you know that has ever given his/her children a lecture about marriage in ANY capacity? To say that this teacher's judgment is representative of teachers everywhere in even a marginal way is absurd and contrived. Anybody who has followed this issue very closely has already seen this video. These two parents are right-wing celebrities. They fell into the lap of Prop-8 propagandeers, and what happened in their child's classroom, while shocking and scary, is so far out in the galaxy of tra-la-crazy that, at the risk of sounding like a nutty conspiracy theorist, one has to wonder if the prop 8 people didn't have their lap suspiciously ready...anyway. I suppose weirder things have happened.
We have to keep in mind that nothing is cut and dry, as you've already pointed out. But unless we take positions on issues floating amidst seas of gray, progress will never be made, justice will never be served. In other words, we have too look at the whole picture, and be cautious of letting our gaze linger too long on rare and extreme situations that aren't remotely representative of the whole.
Anonymous, if I thought that being gay was a choice, or even that choice was a significant factor in a significant number of cases, then boy - I'd think you had a really good point. You yourself acknowledged that the bulk of people on the Kinsey scale distribution seem to reside at either end (1's and 2's, 5's and 6's), with a narrow middle. Please explain to me how it makes sense to let concern for a few children whose sexuality may or may not be affected by their environment in a classroom whose curriculum is obviously one in a million, take precedence over a comparatively huge number of adolescent 5's and 6's in this country (there are an estimated 10 million gay adults alone) whose burgeoning self image is being negatively shaped by today's social attitudes? Are you aware of the rate of gay adolescent suicide? While hard to quantify, conservative rates put it at 9%. That's 9 gay kids out of 100 killing themselves. Other university studies place it as high as 30%. HOW does this make sense?
I knew a kid in school who said his family did not wear safety belts because his parents had heard a story about someone being decapitated by one. I wonder what his parents are doing now that chain emails exist - probably in a bunker somewhere.
This issue won't ever be resolved until people can be open minded enough to understand that sexual orientation isn't a moral choice that most people make. The homosexuals I know live very quietly and discreetly within our community. They did not "choose" to be gay in order to be shocking or counter culture. Being black, white, asthmatic, near sighted, lactose intolerant, or short are not moral choices you make. Sexual orientation isn't a choice either.
I'm in full support of making civil unions legal for any two individuals instead of issuing marriage licenses. Failing that, I absolutely do not see how allowing gay marriage harms moral values among either heterosexual or homosexual families.
There is a longer article on the Wirthlin family featured in the video posted by "Anonymous." It really is an eye-opener, because they are not who they seem/claim to be.
It can be found at the following web address (it's from The Bay Area Reporter):
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3414
I will not go into the specifics of it, except to say that claims like those made in the video are absurd.....and I will paraphrase the final lines of he article, which crystallize the issue for me:
"Sacramento's Westminster Presbyterian church minister David Thompson [said at a rally against Prop 8] "We need to ask what is the most loving thing we can do," Thompson said. "We can honor and respect our Supreme Court's decision and the laws of our land. We are a nation where the majority upholds the rights of the minority and does not legislate them away."
Well said, IMHO.
LOL. I'd like to know exactly how they think gay marriage will be taught in math class. Welcome to all metaphorical math?
"You see Billy, when a positive number and a negative number are multiplied, there's a negative result. But when a positive number and another positive number are multiplied, you get a positive result."
How dare math be naturally subversive!
Seriously, when people draw such extremes, the fear mongering at work reveals itself.
I agree - this is one of the most civil and thoughtful discussions on the topic I've ever seen, I'll try not to ruin that. LOL.
A lot of people have brought up a lot of good points here, but I agree with you Brandy, for the most part, and the NY Times article Baby Olivia added as well. However, I'll take it a step further even. :-)
The big question is why does the government need to be involved in marriage at all, originally being a religious institution & tradition? Well, if you look into the ugly truth behind the history of marriage licenses, I'm afraid the evidence points to the fact that they were first implemented as a way to make sure black men did not intermarry with white women. They had to make everyone obtain a license from the government in order to get "permission" to marry, so that they could limit that "privilege" to conform to the social agenda and prejudices of the times.
Thankfully, we've grown up a little bit since then. However, what do we have now? The government still promotes it's preferred social agenda via contracts such as marriage licenses and the "benefits" that go hand-in-hand with them. Want a big tax break? Live the "traditional American dream life", get a house, get married, have a bunch of kids!! No offense to anyone, but those are some of the biggest tax deduction-generating "life events". Yes, I'm sure many gay people want to get married because of the conditioned social stigma and status that we all associate with that. But I'm sure a lot of them want their fair share of "the pie" as well. And I don't blame them!
How about we eliminate all these "special privileges" granted by preferred lifestyles, get the government out of the marriage business from which they don't belong (amongst other things), and out of the "social engineering" game altogether.
I agree with earlier statements - let's let the churches "marry" people. And if you want all the legality side-effects (the legitimate ones - like hospital visitation, adoption rights, etc), then sure - let anyone sign some kind of legal agreement, be it a "civil union", or whatever - separate from "marriage".
Would this take a little bit of adjustment for society to wrap it's head around? Sure. But I thought everyone was into "change" these days anyway?... ;-)
Nah. As a society we ought to perpetuate the species and if you haven't engaged in that super fun activity, you really have no idea how freaking hard it is. You think a child credit tax break goes any where near the costs in time money and energy it takes to make a decent citizen?
You talk about "life events" "pies" and "special privileges" as though no mother loving sacrifices are made. I am here to say it is a walk in the park for an adult to take care of themselves or two adults to be responsible for the well being of one another. It's pumpkins and powdered doughnuts! But is is not easy to be a parent. If a little "social engineering" helps children to have an slightly easier route to adulthood, do it. Without breeders (that's just the term I prefer :)) like my husband and I, popping out future workers and consumers, you'll have to work until the day you die (pensions and social security and such don't fill themselves, do they? Maybe they do, I'm ignorant with no desire to be educated there). Society can not function without a constant replacement generation and it functions best when those "replacements" are raised with stability and love.
Finally, should the parental relationship dissolve, the legal rights of children to continue to be cared for are protected.
So I can't jump on board with tossing out life style privileges (because that child tax credit does help a little) - those benefiting make considerable sacrifices to be eligible.
But, as always, I think that probably the government shouldn't discriminate who can and cannot make those sacrifices, even those in non-sexual relationships. If you are willing to be responsible for another's care and well being, it lessens the overall burden on the government, that's all of us.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I know there are plenty of sacrifices in raising a family, and it's no walk in the park for sure! I may not have kids of my own, but I have 2 nieces and a nephew that I'm close enough to to get a hint of it at least.
I don't think you understand exactly what angle I was coming at it from though. With the current system, sure it's probably best to give parents tax breaks or whatnot. But I'm all for abolishing the IRS and income tax COMPLETELY. And no, roads wouldn't go into disrepair and social security funds wouldn't dry up - those are taken care of by other taxes. Income tax is used to pay interest to the Federal Reserve. I highly recommend watching America: Freedom to Fascism for a rude awakening. ;-)
But anyway, I enjoyed participating in the debate...
Post a Comment