I confess to elation with Obama's decisive victory. The world has breathed a sigh of relief. This election has increased our nation's standing in the international community. A measure of the worldwide outpouring of goodwill we received in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, arrogantly and recklessly squandered by the outgoing administration, will return. I also think it has increased trust across ethnic lines within the United States.
Of course, I'm extremely disappointed with California's %52-%48 vote in favor of eliminating the right of gays to marry. In favor of eliminating rights? In a constitution? Despicable. This intolerant measure (prop. 8) was funded primarily by the Mormon Church, but received a boost after an endorsement from the notoriously non-secular pastor Rick Warren. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against same sex marriage.
The only issues people have with gay marriage come from the various ancient (or not-so-ancient in the case of LDS) storybooks that they worship. This will lead nicely into step four of Theists Anon:
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of the ancient texts with which we were indoctrinated.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
05 November 2008
28 October 2008
Threat to Marriage?
California's Proposition 8 is shaping up to be the most expensive contest in next week's election after the presidential race itself. A yes vote on Prop 8. will overturn the CA supreme court decision that allows same-sex couples to marry.
There will always be the cries of "activist judges" going against the will off the people. The people who emit these pathetic wails are clearly unfamiliar with the concept of checks and balances and the tyranny of the majority. Part of a judge's job is to determine when laws are unconstitutional. Discrimination counts.
Another complaint from the narrow-minded is that the term "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexual couples and gay couples should have all the same rights in a "civil union." This separate but equal policy didn't work during the era of the Jim Crow laws and it won't work now. All it does is alienate a segment of the population by treating them as second-class citizens. It violates the constitutional tenant of equal protection under the law.
"But, they'll teach it to my kids in school!" Perhaps, if it comes up. Mostly boys marry girls, but sometimes boys marry boys and girls marry girls. This is a fact. Why shouldn't it be taught in schools? No child will be told in any public school who they should marry. (It might happen to a home-schooled child in a separatist Mormon encampment, though...)
There is also the absurd claim floating around that it violates individual freedom of religion. That is an utter crock. No one will be forcing anyone to marry anyone, dammit! You can even continue to believe that homosexuality is an "abomination" or just "hate the sin, love the sinner." If you are a bible literalist, you know that the punishment for homosexuality is not to deny them marriage, but for them to be put to death. You will even be free to believe in this horrid retribution as long as you don't act on it. You can hate whomever you want for whatever reason you like, but our government can't give you the right to discriminate.
One of the most vapid grumbles is that this will somehow violate the "sanctity of marriage." Read your first amendment. The government doesn't do "sanctity." If you are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, work to legislate a ban on divorce. See how that goes over.
The arguments that gay marriage is somehow a threat to society simply don't hold water.
No on 8. Another straight white man for equality.
Think Well,
LV
There will always be the cries of "activist judges" going against the will off the people. The people who emit these pathetic wails are clearly unfamiliar with the concept of checks and balances and the tyranny of the majority. Part of a judge's job is to determine when laws are unconstitutional. Discrimination counts.
Another complaint from the narrow-minded is that the term "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexual couples and gay couples should have all the same rights in a "civil union." This separate but equal policy didn't work during the era of the Jim Crow laws and it won't work now. All it does is alienate a segment of the population by treating them as second-class citizens. It violates the constitutional tenant of equal protection under the law.
"But, they'll teach it to my kids in school!" Perhaps, if it comes up. Mostly boys marry girls, but sometimes boys marry boys and girls marry girls. This is a fact. Why shouldn't it be taught in schools? No child will be told in any public school who they should marry. (It might happen to a home-schooled child in a separatist Mormon encampment, though...)
There is also the absurd claim floating around that it violates individual freedom of religion. That is an utter crock. No one will be forcing anyone to marry anyone, dammit! You can even continue to believe that homosexuality is an "abomination" or just "hate the sin, love the sinner." If you are a bible literalist, you know that the punishment for homosexuality is not to deny them marriage, but for them to be put to death. You will even be free to believe in this horrid retribution as long as you don't act on it. You can hate whomever you want for whatever reason you like, but our government can't give you the right to discriminate.
One of the most vapid grumbles is that this will somehow violate the "sanctity of marriage." Read your first amendment. The government doesn't do "sanctity." If you are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, work to legislate a ban on divorce. See how that goes over.
The arguments that gay marriage is somehow a threat to society simply don't hold water.
No on 8. Another straight white man for equality.
Think Well,
LV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
