It's not like me to vent about a political issue. In fact, I hate political conversations, but I just found out that California (along with a couple other states) has changed their constitution to ban gay marriage.
I think this is unfortunate, but probably not in the way you might assume. I think that politicians are approaching the topic from the wrong angle. Instead of trying to include gays into the existing definition, try changing the definition to include gays. Let me explain...
I think that marriage is an example of where separation of church and state should be applied, however this issue wasn't apparent until recent times. I think that they should change all "marriages" to "civil unions". Then if you're religious and would like to be "married", go ahead and do so in a church. But keep everything government, tax or IRS related as "civil unions". That would maintain the separation of church and state that our country is supposed to have. It would also remove discrimination for gays, while maintaining the sacred meaning of marriage for those who are religious.
Listening to Obama's speech last night made me think about how much has changed in the last 100 years (duh, that was his main theme so I wasn't doing much thinking of my own). It wasn't long ago that it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person.
It makes me wonder what changes Ellie will see in her life time. When she's a grown woman, and looks back on the issues of today, what will she think? Will she agree with how the majority has voted? Or will she wonder what planet we're from? Will she agree with my thoughts and see me as an open-minded person I'd like to consider myself being? Will she consider myself and my generation to be closed minded? Or will she think we were a little too liberal, similar to how we think of hippies?
Ok, sorry about the political talk. I'll try not to let it happen again.
8 comments:
Generally, I agree with you. Frankly I see no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Even as a committed, evangelical Christian, I don't really understand why this matters so much to many.
However, I do resonate with this article by Jennifer Morse. It does a good job of explaining some of the potential consequences of re-defining marriage.
Here's an article by Megan McArdle (a.k.a Jane Galt) that also presents some criticism of gay marriage.
I hope that this is not perceived as preaching, because I really don't know where to stand on this topic. There are some very compelling arguments in both directions. Hence I stand uncomfortably on the fence, unsure of which side is more perilous.
I think that's a great idea!! You should send it to Barack (as if I know him like that).
MJH - Thanks for sending me the links. It took a while for me to read them, but I finally found the time to make it through. I have to admit, though, most of the time I was reading, I kept thinking "what does this have to do with gay marriage?" What I took away from both articles is that what is most important is for the child to have a stable home. I do not believe that having married parents (man & woman) is the only way to have a stable home. In fact, it's not a guarantee either. Then, of course, I come from a family where I know that my parents' divorce was probably a good thing. I can appreciate what the other one was saying about "not knowing what effects there would be in changing the law" but I still do not see how that matters. In the end, I did agree that having a stable family life is important to a child, but I still think that can be done in so many ways. Enough debate. I did not take your comments as preaching and thanks for sharing!
KC - I'll have my people talk to his people and see what we can do. =)
The point of the first article is that the slow erosion of the definition of marriage is an attempt to invest more decision making power in the government. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but the argument is worth thinking about.
The point of the 2nd article is that we must be *extremely* careful with how we plan to muck with social institutions, and in particular marriage. Our history of changing marriage has not gone well. So caution is really called for before we go redefining it again.
And as I said, I don't know if both, either or neither of these posts are correct. But I think they require us to think long and hard, even if we don't see what possible consequences may ensue.
This issue dives me nuts. I think it's like arguing if black people should be allowed to go to school. Years from now, hopefully, gay rights will seem just as obvious as racial equality.
MJH - I can appreciate the message that both articles presented. I do think that a lot of thought needs to be put into making changes, but that the change still needs to be made. I'm sure in time what is fair will come to be. It seems to me that as a society, we will eventually get there. Where ever "there" may be. =)
Dan, I knew your wife read my blog but I didn't realize you did too!
Hmm... I feel like I've said this before. If I have, then welcome back! lol.
Post a Comment