Same-Sex irony
As numbers of gay couples that stood on the steps of the California State Supreme Court cheering the recent ruling to allow same-sex marriage, here is what went through my mind:
“The same group that has spent years telling the government to stay out of their bedrooms are now applauding the fact that government is publicly recognizing (by issuing a license) what they do in their bedrooms.”
The older I get, the less inclined I feel like repeating myself on certain issues. I have been writing on this site now for close to 4 years and the same-sex issue is one I have talked about and debated numbers of times. In short, personally, I do not agree with the concept. As a legal right? When you take a sexual preference and hold it up for public opinion, not only would I vote against it in the form of a ballot proposition (just like the majority of Californians did for Prop. 22 only to have the will of the people overturned by the state supreme court), I would not support any candidate that did. The ballot box is where I do my protesting on this matter. The same would apply to my feelings over abortion. As much as I am against abortion, you will not find me employing any tactics (or supporting those that do) to hinder someone from getting an abortion. Beyond that, what a person does in the privacy of their own home (same sex or unmarried male of female) is not something I use to screen in or out folks in my daily interactions with them. I do not get that personal.
You say you don’t agree with the concept, alluding to same-sex marriages. Do you agree with the concept of equal protection under the law?
That’s the crux of the matter with regards to our ‘rule of law’; the concept of equal protection prohibits the state from creating privileged classes, e.g.; restricting marriage to a contract between a man and a woman. Bans of same-sex marriages are inherently unconstitutional.
Comment by MIB | May 18, 2008
You say you don’t agree with the concept, alluding to same-sex marriages. Do you agree with the concept of equal protection under the law?
Keeping the 14th amendment in mind, yes ALL citizens should be included in that law.
The interesting thing about this particular issue is that it only represents a very small percentage of gays/lesbians (who themselves make up a very small percentage of the total population) who actually want to get married in the first place. It seems that most people who cohabitate are content with the already existing privileges under our civil union laws. Personally, I think there is more afoot here than meets the eye.
Comment by Duane | May 18, 2008
MIB,
Do you also advocate that a brother should be able to marry his sister and a father be allowed to marry his daugther?
Comment by Give it a rest! | May 19, 2008
These arguments about same sex marriage and abortion are futile, those championing it are doing so on basis of Human rights and the mans law, those against are driven by moral and religious basis and the divine law, hence there will never be a common ground.
Unfortunately this materialistic world is driven by selfish interest,lobbyists, where the value base is not virtues and values but profit and loss.
Comment by Kay | May 21, 2008