Gay Marriage Amendment: My Take
As you know by now, the gay marriage amendment or defense of marriage act or whatever we're calling it has two parts. The first sentence defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
I'm going to ignore the argument over the word "marriage" and talk about what's really important.
I can't intelligently argue that gays should not be afforded most of the same privileges as straight couples. That's probably because I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I never chose to like girls. I just do. I really, really do.
Another hesitation I have in allowing gays to wed is in allowing them to adopt. I know that there are kids in bad places that would be better off with a daddy and a daddy versus whatever their situation is now. The thing that I truly fear in allowing gay couples to adopt is not that the child will go to a loving gay home, but that the child will go to an activist gay home. I don't want kids being used as pawns to play some political game. Playground politics will be rough enough for kids with two mommies. Now, add to that the brainwashing at home from parents with an agenda... Well, on the bright side the kid will probably hate his mommies and grow up a staunch conservative.
I know, some straight homes suck to. Blah, Blah, Blah. I suppose we could protect the children by letting the government raise them all.
The second sentence of the proposed bill also deals with gay unions in other states. I can see the logic in not wanting to recognize other state's gay marriage rulings. There are differences in the marriage laws from state to state already (eg. legal age of marriage). Who knows what kind of strings other states might attach if they decide to allow same sex unions. I'm just not sold on the way this bill is written.
There is a sentence that could be added to this bill, which would convince me to vote in favor of it.
- Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
I'm going to ignore the argument over the word "marriage" and talk about what's really important.
- A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
I can't intelligently argue that gays should not be afforded most of the same privileges as straight couples. That's probably because I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I never chose to like girls. I just do. I really, really do.
Another hesitation I have in allowing gays to wed is in allowing them to adopt. I know that there are kids in bad places that would be better off with a daddy and a daddy versus whatever their situation is now. The thing that I truly fear in allowing gay couples to adopt is not that the child will go to a loving gay home, but that the child will go to an activist gay home. I don't want kids being used as pawns to play some political game. Playground politics will be rough enough for kids with two mommies. Now, add to that the brainwashing at home from parents with an agenda... Well, on the bright side the kid will probably hate his mommies and grow up a staunch conservative.
I know, some straight homes suck to. Blah, Blah, Blah. I suppose we could protect the children by letting the government raise them all.
The second sentence of the proposed bill also deals with gay unions in other states. I can see the logic in not wanting to recognize other state's gay marriage rulings. There are differences in the marriage laws from state to state already (eg. legal age of marriage). Who knows what kind of strings other states might attach if they decide to allow same sex unions. I'm just not sold on the way this bill is written.
There is a sentence that could be added to this bill, which would convince me to vote in favor of it.
- It is recognized that E85 is gay and is therefore not recognized as a viable automotive fuel in the state of Wisconsin.
7 Amendments:
Is your disapproval of a allowing Ethanol and Gasoline to co-habitate as partners a civil union objection or religious intolerance?
Both.
It is most definately against my religion to burn an inferior fuel.
Two quick points on a nice piece, Aaron.
1) We don't want to head down a road where one state doesn't recognize legal marriages from another state. Every job transfer would mean another wedding.
2) The bill also allows for a gratuitous slap at "activist judges" present or future, real or imagined.
Great post --- You can find out more about the ban and follow the campaign here.
if they let this go through then someday it will be legal to "marry" animals or something.
Great Post! I never even though about the domestic partner clause dissappearing.
ioutm
I agree w/ the domestic partner bit. Kevin & I were DP's before we got married. It helped emensly.
However, your quote of,
"The only hesitation I have in allowing gays to wed is in allowing them to adopt." and "Playground politics will be rough enough for kids with two mommies. ...Well, on the bright side the kid will probably hate his mommies and grow up a staunch conservative."
And you may not have any gay readers (at least not any that would admidt to reading your blog)
but maybe you should visit one of my favorite blogs and tell me how you feel later
http://dosmamacitas.blogspot.com/
I heard about your blog from Addy and just have to say that same-sex couples work very hard to have children and I don't know a single couple who is doing so to have a "political pawn". We want kids for all the same reasons straight couples do. It's hurtful that you think otherwise.
And, many of the advocates of marriage being available to same-sex couples are those very couples who already have or are trying to have children. We want our children to have the legal protections that they deserve for their families.
My wife and I have been a couple for 13 years and have been legally married for 2 (thank you Canada!). We're actively working to add a little one to our family because we've both always wanted children. We want someone new to love, we want to help them grow and watch the world through their eyes. We want to kiss their knees when they get scratched. We hope to have grand-children. We look forward to them caring for us when we're old.
The very act of us becoming parents is political by nature in our current societal climate, but we are not choosing to be parents in some attempt to make a political statement. That would be a bit ridiculous, don't you think? That's a lot of poopy diapers, screaming in stores, years of worry, heartbreak, etc to take on just to make a statement. And that's just what comes after we have a child. Just the trying to get pregnant process has proved to be much more challenging than anyone would take on simply to make any kind of statement.
As far as the domestic partner benefits at many workplaces, I agree that it's great that they are available for people who cannont or choose not to marry. For employees should all have access to the same benefits regardless of their family structure. Married employees shouldn't have more benefits than unmarried ones, etc. And, I hope that when marriage between two people of the same sex is recognized across the US, we will still have domestic partner benefits in the workplace for those who choose not to marry. BUT, to say that my marriage to my wife should not be recognized just so a straight couple who CHOOSES not to marry can keep their benefits is just mean.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home