Gay marriage?
Again, this is one of those topics that I'm just not really sure how I feel about it. My initial instinct is to not make amendments regarding it and simply leave it to the states to decide. I feel the same way about abortion. Neither should be a federal right. Leave it to the states to decide what they think about it and leave it to the voters of that state as well as the church. If a pastor or priest won't perform a ceremony, go to the JP and have a civil union. It is just as binding to me. AoD and I were married that way before we had a priest marry us in the church several years later.
Personally, I don't see how gay people getting married is going to impact me in any fashion. I don't want to see them mugging down in the mall any more than I want to see a man and a woman mugging in the mall. But, then again, I have many homosexual friends who are life partners and have been together longer than me and Army of Dad and they've weathered all those things that husband and wife have to weather, too. So, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry if they want to?
Here is one opinion from Bogus Gold. I'm interested in yours. I think this is one topic I can be swayed on.
Personally, I don't see how gay people getting married is going to impact me in any fashion. I don't want to see them mugging down in the mall any more than I want to see a man and a woman mugging in the mall. But, then again, I have many homosexual friends who are life partners and have been together longer than me and Army of Dad and they've weathered all those things that husband and wife have to weather, too. So, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry if they want to?
Here is one opinion from Bogus Gold. I'm interested in yours. I think this is one topic I can be swayed on.
3 Comments:
At 1:11 PM, November 16, 2004,
Army of Mom said…
I'm still torn. Just seems right to me that it should be a man and a woman. I don't care if gays have civil unions and if they can find a church to marry them, a marriage there, but I don't see where it should be an amendment for or against. There is no amendment for/against straight marriages. Just seems foolish.
At 2:25 PM, November 16, 2004,
Anonymous said…
Marriage was the business of religion, the moment the government got into the marriage business it opened it up to regulation.
My $.02 is that they should not be allowed to marry. I think states should be allowed to decide whether they will allow civil unions and whether those unions will entitle them to the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If a state should allow them a civil union other states should not be compelled to recognize that union if it is not permissible in that state.
My opinion isn't likely to change so save the emails and comments.
Army of Dad
At 2:30 PM, November 16, 2004,
Uzz said…
My problem with gay marriage is that it is not really about being married...its about forcing their agenda down the collective throat of the majority of Americans. Let's be honest...Bush won this election thanks to the far left and their litany of agendas that scared the crap out of the heartland. You saw 10 states pass measures to define marriage between a man and a woman...and one of those states was Oregon, which fell to Kerry in the Presidential election...and the measure passed by a healthy margin! The moment Gavin Newsome, the San Francisco mayor, decided to start handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, thumbing his nose at the will of the people of the state of California, he helped grease the wheels for the Bush re-election. He, as well as people like Michael Moore, woke up the sleeping bear that is the religious center...not the religious right...the latter group is always vigilant.
I have no problem with civil unions, that afford those couples with the same rights as married heterosexuals. They should be allowed to make decisions when it comes to health-related issues of their partner. They should be able to extend insurance benefits to their partners. They should be able to work out child custody arrangements in case of a death. These are the rights that are afforded to married heterosexuals.
Marriage, from a historical viewpoint, has been a religious covenant between a man and a woman. The only reason this is an issue is that the states are tasked with creating "marriage licenses". The vast majority of Americans believe in A God...not just a Christian God, but a Muslim God, a Jewish God, etc... Opinion Dynamics Corporation released a poll this past year that showed that 92% of Americans believe in A God. Out of that number it is reasonable to assume that it accounts for a massive number of organized religions, which overwhelmingly support marriage, as an institution, as between a man and a woman.
I am not going to debate whether homosexuality is a sin...that is up to each individual to decide in accordance with their personal value system or religious belief. I do believe though, that a small minority of people should not be able to use the courts to try and force the vast majority of Americans to accept their "lifestyle". What's next? Should we allow people to marry multiple partners, just because 1% of the population wants it? All that shows me is that we would have a system that equates to a tyranny of the minority.
It is interesting that African-Americans may be one of the most vehement groups against gay marriage and the Bush camp was able to mobilize a portion of their support that ALSO helped him win re-election. The Republican Party made a lot of inroads into many historically liberal minorities and a lot of it came from the the religious Hispanics and African Americans...why? Think about it!
Again, I am all for civil unions and I believe like AoM...this should be a state issue. I don't think the right wing needs to create amendments on a Federal level...this is a state issue and it needs to stay that way. I differ with Bush on this and several other issues, but life is not black and white and I think the Republicans offered a better moral vision than the increasingly Socialist-leaning Democratic party.
Like many issues, this is not a black and white issue and healthy debate is always good for society. It is when we fail to debate that we are doomed as a free country. The country debated this issue this year and made its decision.
Post a Comment
<< Home