Almost there...

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Marriage in America

Okay, so this is really bugging me. A child molester can be married, but a fine, upstanding, model American homosexual couple is a threat to the moral values of our country if they get married. Please, oh please, explain that demented logic to me. Seriously, Suzi and Sandy, who own their own home, two cars, and have started their own small business, they are a threat to society. I don't get it. Sounds to me like a couple merrily pursuing the American Dream. Guess I'd be wrong. That seems to happen a lot lately.

5 Comments:

  • As a rule, I generally disagree with most of your political viewpoints I've seen, but I'm with you on this one. Usually conservatives are very logical on their viewpoints on issues, but not here. I've heard conservatives argue against Gay Marriage, saying that Gay Marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage or demean it, but they never really make a good case for that. I guess its supposed to be self-evident. How does expanding the "right" of marriage to any 2 adults demean or destroy marriage between a man and a woman?

    I've even heard conservatives say they support Civil Unions, but not Gay marriage. I really think the issue is the word "Marriage" which has too religious of a connotation.

    If liberals pushed for "Civil Unions" with identical rights and responsabilities as marriage, it would probably get a lot more support. They just have to leave out the word marriage or make up a new word.

    By Blogger Kevin, at 11:18 AM  

  • See, I'm not truly fiercely anti-republican. I am however, fiercely against the conservative christian takeover of the republican party. In fact, if John McCain had won the primary five years ago, I would've voted for him in a heartbeat. But he didn't and instead we got a wacko fundy in office. This is in turn validating the fundies around the country and eroding the separation between church and state. To say that civil unions would be okay, but that marriage is a too religiously loaded word is absurd on so many levels, not the least of which was that it wasn't even allowed in the church for hundreds of years. It's a pagan custom in the first place, later adopted as a sacrament second to chastity, and tons of Americans are married every day in civil marriages by the justice of the peace or some other civil official. It's not a religious word, but the christian conservatives have taken it hostage like a viscious dog protecting her puppies. Why are the republicans in bed with these nutjobs, other than to pimp out their votes? Not even Reagan was like this, and that's only 15-20 years ago. It's spooky. Reminds me of Heinlein's "If This Goes On..." (http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/ifthisogoeson.html)

    By Blogger Ammy, at 12:38 PM  

  • So what is more important, the label or the pragmatic issue of the rights? If the fundies care that much about the word, let them have it so long as exactly the same rights, recognition and legal status are awarded to civil unions, domestic partners or even "this legal document between two guys named Bob".

    Better still would be to get government the hell out of marriage altogether. Make the legal arrangement a purely civil contract and let the religious nuts call it marriage inside church.

    Rather than assault the points of friction here, why not try to step around them altogether? You're never going to convince these whackos that they have a fundamental flaw in their worldview, so why go to war to destroy them when it would be better to try to make them (or their arguments) irrelevant?

    By Blogger Bill B, at 1:23 PM  

  • The problem with calling the union other than "marriage" is that all the laws using the word "marriage" would have to be updated to include the word that is not "marriage" but means the same thing. It's easier to call any civil union between people a "marriage" in order to make that relationship legally relevant across the board.

    By Blogger Bill, at 4:27 PM  

  • If liberals pushed for "Civil Unions" with identical rights and responsabilities as marriage, it would probably get a lot more support. They just have to leave out the word marriage or make up a new word.



    A number of the laws passed outlawed civil unions of any type, as does the amendment Bush proposed. So while the odea has some merit, it's not that easy.

    By Blogger Chris S, at 11:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home