The Defense of Marriage Act
is more than sufficient. We don't need no stinkin' Amendments.
Woo Hoo.
It's not often I like what Congress has done lately (Patriot Act, cough, Patriot Act) but I have to say, I approve of their action here. Shot down in a blaze of glory. An open letter for all the religions that have problems with allowing gays to marry, what is wrong with supporting civil unions? To the extent that civil unions between homosexual and heterosexual individuals, conferring all the rights that marriage currently does, what is the objection? Because while Bush wants it to be so, this is not a religious issuse, but a civil rights issue. After all, not that long ago in our storied history, the United States determined that blacks and whites should not marry, that it was against the law of God. (actually, I believe that religion was also the reason why women were denied the right to vote.) Much as interracial marriages did not spell the end of marriage, neither will gay marriage. (And really, if you want to discuss things that will put an end to marraige, the 50% divorce rate by heterosexuals is a much greater threat than homosexual marriage.)
The problem with this debate is that is is improperly focused. This is not a religious issue, this is an equal rights issue: Do homosexual individuals deserve equal rights to that of heterosexual individuals. And critics of gay marriage are absolutely right that this issue will create a slippery slope. But rather than opening up to possibility of sex with animals (where does that theory come from anyway???) I think that if the U.S. were to decide that homosexual citizens do not deserve equal rights, that they, as second class citizens, are now able to be beaten and discriminated against in the workforce, without laws to protect them.
This is not a "do you agree with homosexuals'lifestyle?" issue, or even "would God agree with homosexuals' lifestyle?" issue. This is not whether you in your heart of hearts honestly believe that the conduct homosexuals engage in is a sin. It is whether homosexuals deserve to be shunned by society, treated as second-class citizens, denied equal rights, discriminated against, and hated.
And one more thing for all those religious critics: "[Noted church historian] John Boswell... has discovered that, whereas the church did not declare heterosexual marriage to be a sacrament until 1215 C.E., one of the Vatican Library's earliest Greek liturgical documents is a marriage ceremony for two persons of the same sex. The document dates to the fourth century, if not earlier. In other words, nine centuries before heterosexual marriage was declared a sacrament, the church liturgically celebrated same-sex covenants." See, (letters section, Nine (final paragraph before ten))
Oh, and assuming the rumors are true (and there is some speculation that they were started bythe Bush camp), I don't blame Kerry for wishing that McCain was a Democrat to run as his VP. This guy is intelligent, middle of the road, and willing to break with his "party" for what he thinks is right.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such a constitutional amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.
"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."
"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.
Woo Hoo.
It's not often I like what Congress has done lately (Patriot Act, cough, Patriot Act) but I have to say, I approve of their action here. Shot down in a blaze of glory. An open letter for all the religions that have problems with allowing gays to marry, what is wrong with supporting civil unions? To the extent that civil unions between homosexual and heterosexual individuals, conferring all the rights that marriage currently does, what is the objection? Because while Bush wants it to be so, this is not a religious issuse, but a civil rights issue. After all, not that long ago in our storied history, the United States determined that blacks and whites should not marry, that it was against the law of God. (actually, I believe that religion was also the reason why women were denied the right to vote.) Much as interracial marriages did not spell the end of marriage, neither will gay marriage. (And really, if you want to discuss things that will put an end to marraige, the 50% divorce rate by heterosexuals is a much greater threat than homosexual marriage.)
The problem with this debate is that is is improperly focused. This is not a religious issue, this is an equal rights issue: Do homosexual individuals deserve equal rights to that of heterosexual individuals. And critics of gay marriage are absolutely right that this issue will create a slippery slope. But rather than opening up to possibility of sex with animals (where does that theory come from anyway???) I think that if the U.S. were to decide that homosexual citizens do not deserve equal rights, that they, as second class citizens, are now able to be beaten and discriminated against in the workforce, without laws to protect them.
This is not a "do you agree with homosexuals'lifestyle?" issue, or even "would God agree with homosexuals' lifestyle?" issue. This is not whether you in your heart of hearts honestly believe that the conduct homosexuals engage in is a sin. It is whether homosexuals deserve to be shunned by society, treated as second-class citizens, denied equal rights, discriminated against, and hated.
And one more thing for all those religious critics: "[Noted church historian] John Boswell... has discovered that, whereas the church did not declare heterosexual marriage to be a sacrament until 1215 C.E., one of the Vatican Library's earliest Greek liturgical documents is a marriage ceremony for two persons of the same sex. The document dates to the fourth century, if not earlier. In other words, nine centuries before heterosexual marriage was declared a sacrament, the church liturgically celebrated same-sex covenants." See, (letters section, Nine (final paragraph before ten))
Oh, and assuming the rumors are true (and there is some speculation that they were started bythe Bush camp), I don't blame Kerry for wishing that McCain was a Democrat to run as his VP. This guy is intelligent, middle of the road, and willing to break with his "party" for what he thinks is right.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such a constitutional amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.
"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."
"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.
posted by -Me @ 7/14/2004 01:51:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home