Can I Write in a Choice on the Gay Marriage Amendment?
As I've said before, the debate over the gay marriage ban would be a totally different story if the second sentence was eliminated. I'm seriously thinking I may write-in "Casper" on the amendment, or rewrite it with only the first sentence.
I'm increasingly annoyed over the gay marriage debate, because both sides are guilty of using the word "marriage" as a political tool. The conservative side preaches to the sanctity of marriage, even when the debate is over civil unions and not church weddings. They know that they can draw out their base by making it appear that a holy institution is at stake. On the other side, the activists ARE fighting to steal the word "marriage." They don't actually care about getting fair treatment or legally equivalent status for average gay people. They're fighting a cause, and the only way for them to declare victory is to force the rest of us to give up the word and what many people believe it stands for. We really need to dump the extremists on both sides of this issue and start discussing the part that matters: should gay people be allowed to have a union that is recognized as a family unit?
The recent developments in New Jersey are as shocking to me as they are to most of the rest of you. But, I disagree when Patrick says that this is a reason to vote "YES" on the gay marriage amendment.
I don't agree with what the court did, either. So how do I reconcile that with my position on the choice in front of us in November?
Demanding that the state pass a law is equivalent to the court writing a law all by itself. Courts are not afforded that power. If what they did isn't illegal it ought to be! Courts are allowed to interpret existing law and that's basically it. They should not be allowed to make decisions based on foreign law and they certainly should not be allowed to mandate that new laws be written. I believe that people who are voting "YES" on the amendment to protect us from activist/rouge courts are being extremely narrowly focused. To them I say, vote "NO" and think about passing some legislation that will protect us from the courts dictating law from the bench on all issues, not just this one!
I'm increasingly annoyed over the gay marriage debate, because both sides are guilty of using the word "marriage" as a political tool. The conservative side preaches to the sanctity of marriage, even when the debate is over civil unions and not church weddings. They know that they can draw out their base by making it appear that a holy institution is at stake. On the other side, the activists ARE fighting to steal the word "marriage." They don't actually care about getting fair treatment or legally equivalent status for average gay people. They're fighting a cause, and the only way for them to declare victory is to force the rest of us to give up the word and what many people believe it stands for. We really need to dump the extremists on both sides of this issue and start discussing the part that matters: should gay people be allowed to have a union that is recognized as a family unit?
The recent developments in New Jersey are as shocking to me as they are to most of the rest of you. But, I disagree when Patrick says that this is a reason to vote "YES" on the gay marriage amendment.
I don't agree with what the court did, either. So how do I reconcile that with my position on the choice in front of us in November?
Demanding that the state pass a law is equivalent to the court writing a law all by itself. Courts are not afforded that power. If what they did isn't illegal it ought to be! Courts are allowed to interpret existing law and that's basically it. They should not be allowed to make decisions based on foreign law and they certainly should not be allowed to mandate that new laws be written. I believe that people who are voting "YES" on the amendment to protect us from activist/rouge courts are being extremely narrowly focused. To them I say, vote "NO" and think about passing some legislation that will protect us from the courts dictating law from the bench on all issues, not just this one!
1 Amendments:
Well Aaron, I happen to disagree with you regarding this sentence: "The conservative side preaches to the sanctity of marriage, even when the debate is over civil unions and not church weddings."
The fact is that the gay community keeps pushing, and even though right now it is all about "civil unions" it won't be long before they demand church weddings. It's already happening in some denominations. So it will eventually boil down to the sanctity of marriage because the gay community will push it that far. Conservatives already know that.
I don't think most of us care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, nor do we care if they set up housekeeping, give Power of Attorney to each other, make out wills to each other or give beneficiary status to each other in their IRAs.
But "marriage" IS MARRIAGE OF MAN AND WOMAN, and they keep pushing the issue to make it other than that. So it becomes a very serious issue and the conservatives already know, from past experience, how it will go. The envelope will continue to be pushed until the word becomes meaningless.
And if you believe I'm being intolerant, just let me explain that I feel the same way about polygamy, even though polygamy has had a legitimate place in some societies in the world, whereas gay marriage never has. I just don't feel either should have a place in our society.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home