Jim Stillman
Nevar
The sky won’t fall if same-sex unions are allowed.
May 16th 2008 17:48
Last December, I posted an article suggesting that the fight against same-sex unions, call them “marriage” or something else, was a fight that already had been fought. The majority of people simply do not care; they realize that what two consenting adults do in private does not truly impact the rest of us. The issue is only relevant in that a minority of people, some cynical political operatives energizing the GOP “base”, others sincere and devout people of several faiths who perceive homosexual relationships to be sin and, therefore, should be forbidden. There are also those who, again, sincerely, feel that allowing such relationships undermine the nature of marriage.
I will not bother with those who employ facile cutesy phrases as God wanted marriage to be between “Adam and Eve” and not “Adam and Steve”.
It may rhyme but it presupposes a familiarity with the Deity’s design for Creation that I find presumptuous.
Be that as it may, the decision of the California Supreme Court that the state cannot discriminate against same-sex marriage any more than it may do so with regard to interracial ones, has the Chicken Littlies all a twitter.
I suggest to those with panties in a wad to ask themselves: how or why does this affect you? While I am not at all convinced that the fight over a woman’s right to early-term abortion is relevant to political discourse, at least in that arena there is the real concern about destroying a life, nascent or not. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reason to fear its consequences. No person is harmed. If there is a reason other than homophobia, tell us what it is.
I was listening to a far-right conservative talk-radio program this afternoon. The host made several arguments as to why the Court’s ruling was to be condemned.
The first was predictable – and simply evidenced lack of understanding of the constitutional issues. While California has a legislature and while the populace may vote in a referendum on gay-marriage, or segregated schools for that matter or the adoption of Christianity or Shintoism as a state religion, the Constitution forbids such. It is the province of the Court to measure the alleged popular will of the people against the Constitution. Constitutional rights are not determined by the transient will of the crowd.
The second argument was that permitting same-sex marriage weakened the meaning of marriage, especially for the young and future generations. I suggest that the concept of marriage is already weakened by the actions of celebrities whom are held up as role models to the public and, often, specifically to preteens. Go down to your neighborhood retail store and look at the “fan magazines”, the popular glossy magazines, the blatantly vulgar music videos. Note, if you will, the number of newspaper articles and television shows devoted to glamorizing the living together and bearing children without any marriage. Note a 50% divorce rate. Recall the “religious leaders and preachers” who have had affairs outside of their marriage.
Now, please tell me how the legal union of two committed homosexual individuals will destroy the principle of marriage.
I suppose that an honest concern over the sanctity of the institution of “marriage” could be in play – but what then of the objection to non-marriage civil unions? Does it come down to semantics? No, I think not.
I do not advocate gay marriage nor do I condemn it. Frankly, I am not threatened nor harmed in any way by the concept. My life will not be changed in any way; I suspect most people feel the same. If you do not choose to marry a person of your own gender, faith, race, color, whatever, that is your absolute right; if you choose to marry someone who is the same sex, that should be your right, too.
In any event, why my values and morals should be imposed on you escapes me. And vice versa.
I will not bother with those who employ facile cutesy phrases as God wanted marriage to be between “Adam and Eve” and not “Adam and Steve”.
It may rhyme but it presupposes a familiarity with the Deity’s design for Creation that I find presumptuous.
Be that as it may, the decision of the California Supreme Court that the state cannot discriminate against same-sex marriage any more than it may do so with regard to interracial ones, has the Chicken Littlies all a twitter.
I suggest to those with panties in a wad to ask themselves: how or why does this affect you? While I am not at all convinced that the fight over a woman’s right to early-term abortion is relevant to political discourse, at least in that arena there is the real concern about destroying a life, nascent or not. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reason to fear its consequences. No person is harmed. If there is a reason other than homophobia, tell us what it is.
I was listening to a far-right conservative talk-radio program this afternoon. The host made several arguments as to why the Court’s ruling was to be condemned.
The first was predictable – and simply evidenced lack of understanding of the constitutional issues. While California has a legislature and while the populace may vote in a referendum on gay-marriage, or segregated schools for that matter or the adoption of Christianity or Shintoism as a state religion, the Constitution forbids such. It is the province of the Court to measure the alleged popular will of the people against the Constitution. Constitutional rights are not determined by the transient will of the crowd.
The second argument was that permitting same-sex marriage weakened the meaning of marriage, especially for the young and future generations. I suggest that the concept of marriage is already weakened by the actions of celebrities whom are held up as role models to the public and, often, specifically to preteens. Go down to your neighborhood retail store and look at the “fan magazines”, the popular glossy magazines, the blatantly vulgar music videos. Note, if you will, the number of newspaper articles and television shows devoted to glamorizing the living together and bearing children without any marriage. Note a 50% divorce rate. Recall the “religious leaders and preachers” who have had affairs outside of their marriage.
Now, please tell me how the legal union of two committed homosexual individuals will destroy the principle of marriage.
I suppose that an honest concern over the sanctity of the institution of “marriage” could be in play – but what then of the objection to non-marriage civil unions? Does it come down to semantics? No, I think not.
I do not advocate gay marriage nor do I condemn it. Frankly, I am not threatened nor harmed in any way by the concept. My life will not be changed in any way; I suspect most people feel the same. If you do not choose to marry a person of your own gender, faith, race, color, whatever, that is your absolute right; if you choose to marry someone who is the same sex, that should be your right, too.
In any event, why my values and morals should be imposed on you escapes me. And vice versa.
| 79 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes, I am actually quoting here. I couldn't believe it. Of course the underlying reason is homophobia. Note the use of the word "pervert" and equating a homosexual to a person who has sex with animals.
Funny, but in a very scary way.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
Till I can get married to my loved one - who happens to be the same sex as me - same as anyone else I am not equal. Not a 'civil union' or 'civil partnership' or 'registered partnership' or any other Jim Crow law - married.
When people say that to 'allow' (how condescending! how arrogant!) gay marriage would be to devalue their marriage, I'm insulted. As if my love were worth less than anyone elses!
If anyone has harmed marriage, it's straight white males turning in their wives for a younger model once they've made a few bucks, or bored self-indulgent women wanting to 'have it all.'