Gay Marriage.
Ok, I’ve had it with this gay marriage debate.
Today, it seems, a Maryland court is hearing the latest argument for gay marriage—not that anything new’s being said. Well, that’s fine, and to be expected. What ticks me off in this case (as in all cases) is the language that the two sides use.
On the one hand: “‘Why shouldn’t you have the same rights?’”
On the other: “‘Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.’”
The question is not about “rights.” Nobody has the right to a civil marriage. That’s ridiculous. Nobody has the right to tax breaks and all those other lovely things that go along with it. What the government chooses to bestow on certain unions is a question different from rights. It’s a question of benefits. Nobody has the right to benefits. But what they do have a right to are equal benefits.
If the government feels the need to grant certain benefits to one group of people, it must not withhold those benefits from other groups that fall under the same category. That’s why we have Brown v. Board and other cases concerning setups that are “inherently unequal.” Because they aren’t equal.
I’m going with the recent New Jersey ruling on this: you don’t have to call it “marriage,” but if you’re going to grant benefits to one group, they’d better be available for all groups in equivalent situations.
Of course, now New Jersey has the predictable “Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage” reaction, and all the other stuff. Well, I really don’t see what the fuss is over one word. I’m in favor of calling it marriage, simply because so many groups seem to hold on to the word as a tool of oppression: “if we don’t call it marriage, then they’re really not equal, right?” seems to be the prevalent self-reassuring attitude in NJ right now (hmm…sounds a little much like “separate-but-equal,” now, doesn’t it?). It’s a shame, but let’s worry about the legal discrimination before we get to the cultural discrimination. Fix one, the other will be fixed down the road.
And going back to the language: no, courts cannot create rights. Neither can Congress. Congress can confer benefits, and the courts can make sure that rights are not being violated. In the case of the sex-based inequalities currently in place, rights are being violated. The details of the benefits are up to Congress, but the rights belong in the courts.
OK, relax. Remember the old concept “with all deliberate speed?” All we have to de is become increasingly more deliberate to create the equality you clearly feel is being denied.
Your passion is evident. Your clarity is precise. As a 30-year participant in a conventional marriage, it seems absurd to prolong this argument.
All marriages in the USA require a legal document. Once the document is issued it is up to the partners to determine the means by which to sanctify that union. There is no requirement for any religious involvement whatsoever. So, I think all the objections are irrational.
If we are a group of independent minded voters, we can not deny the legitimacy of marriage for any two persons of marriagable age.
Most of the objections from gay marriage stem at their root from an objection from homosexuality itself. As the older generations die we will win, since the newer generations are pretty clearly much more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. I would bet that gay marriage will be legal everywhere in 30 years.
I have no doubt that it eventually will be tolerated. It frustrates me that people are so unwilling to look past their own beliefs and realize that others may believe differently (and act differently without bringing on the apocalypse).
In time, in time. For now, patience is required, it seems.
You also have to look at the bible where it is very clear what should happen. However with more tolerance in up comming youth, it will in the end pass. Sure is a shame to.
Hmmm, the Bible… Isn’t that the one that quoted Jesus as saying “do unto others….” It’s also the one that says “Thou shall not commit adultery, lie, etc” and I see plenty of “Christians” doing whatever they please with no regard for the Ten Commandments. When there is as much uproar over adulterers, liars, etc as there is over homosexuals maybe we will begin to approach equity. (I’m not holding my breath).
To lie steal and cheat is also wrong. So because someone does one those things it makes another thing that is wrong right? I am trying to follow your logic. I guess you ar assumming Christians are perfect from the start
“When there is as much uproar over adulterers, liars, etc as there is over homosexuals”
There is such an uproar… it is called alimony