For my first issue, I figured I'd give myself an easy one. So here it is: gay marriage. Why's it so easy? Because it's so goddamned straightforward, if you actual care about equal rights, there's no way to justify not allowing gay marriage.
The counterarguements:
1. public opinion
Who gives a shit about public opinion when we're talking about a basic civil liberty? For quite awhile, public opinion was against interracial marriage, as well. I don't care what gives people the heebie jeebies, they're discriminatory heebie jeebies, and they must not interfere with the rights of others. Anyway, this country is not based on mob rule...given the average intelligence of Americans, we'd be screwed.
2. "marriage is between a man and a woman..."
The only "proof" for that is religious, and I heard about this nifty thing...I think they call it separation of church and state. Once again, I will not fall for the heebie jeebies craze.
3. "sactity of marriage..."
Britney Spears had a what...24, maybe 48 hour marriage. If that's not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage," I don't know what is.
4. "slippery slope"
Bestiality? Incest? Pedophilia? Consent issues.
5. state rights
I felt the same way at one point...I'm a big fan of state rights, as well, due to my fears of a highly centralized huge government not being able to serve it's citizens well. The constitution does indeed give responsibility of marriage issues to the states. However, this isn't a small issue, it's a basic civil right, just like marriage is...for all citizens of the US. It's an issue of discrimination, and it's an issue where basic definitions need to be changed. Slavery was also argued to be a state issue, as it was legally a property matter at the time. But the US government stepped in and took away this terrible definition, as it needs to in this case. Where does it have the power to this? Well, there's a reason the elastic clause was written...and it absolutely should not be abused, but in an issue regarding discrimination and civil liberties, I would consider it appropriate.
the fear of apathy results in ramblings
About Me
- charismatic megafauna
- A green, a zionist, and a goat lover who will never stop fighting for freedom.
2 comments:
I think the real issue is state sponsored “marriage”. Most folks don’t have a problem with civil unions that bestow on the individuals equal rights under the law. What most folks seem to have issue with is this “holy tradition” being ‘forced’ to change by a minority within the population.
I am not sure how we as a society should go about making this issue better. Part of me thinks all folks who get married in a church or other religious institution should then simply have it listed as a ‘civil union’ at a governmental level. Whether a private church wants to marry two folks together is up to them, but it is nearly impossible to tell two individuals that they are not entitled to the same rights as others at a legal level simply because the church says so.
A tricky subject for sure, and I will be interested to see where it goes in the coming decades.
I actually fully agree...sometimes I even wonder if this whole relationship thing should be state sponsored period. But yes, it really should all be civil unions, but for now, let it be equal.
Post a Comment