I first read about California's Prop 8 to ban same-sex marriage about a week or so before the election. I figured there was a headwind against its passage, given California's political leanings and the excitement about Barack Obama. Besides, Arizona had rejected a gay marriage ban two years ago, so California certainly would, right? Well, it passed 52-48.
One issue where I part with conservatives is same-sex marriage. I have heard all the arguments, including people saying it's a question of judicial overreach. But, when it comes down to it, to me the judicial overreach argument is a red herring. I don't believe that all proponents of same-sex marriage bans (including the one that unfortunately passed in Wisconsin) hate homosexuals. But, some do. And, others seem to feel queasy about it. Others will argue that they are defending the sanctity of marriage. What sanctity? We as a society have done a pretty good job of ruining the sanctity of marriage. I don't think there is a good legal argument against same-sex marriage. Now, if any church does not want to marry same-sex couples, that is their perogative.
Amanda has a good post about this at her place. It also includes a video from Keith Olbermann. I don't agree with him on a lot, but he is dead on here.
Here is the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is going to happen (it already is in Massachusetts and Connecticut), and we are going to end up wasting a lot of time overturning constitutional bans that have been enacted once we realize that same-sex marriage is no big deal. As for me, I don't care if gays want to marry each other. Let them...it's not taking away any marriage license I may eventually need. If Minnesota ever puts a ban like this on the ballot, I will vote against the ban.
I know I will get flak from conservatives on this...so be it.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Because I am too old for most social networks and too young for letters to the editor.
- Captain Capitalism
- Shreds
- Badger Blog Alliance
- Truth v. The Machine
- Boots On
- KAR
- City Comforts Blog
- The Stencil
- Here in Time
- Memeopolis
- Blogger Beer
- Demographia
- The Antiplanner
- The Night Writer
- On the Borderline
- Sykes Writes
- Sports Guy
- Chicago Tribune
- Pioneer Press (St. Paul)
- Appleton Post-Crescent
- Madison WSJ/Cap Times
- Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
- The Family Blog
- Anti-Strib
- Boots and Sabers
- Fraters Libertas
- Shot in the Dark
- Power Line
- Nihilist in Golf Pants
- 1999 Heuring Road (my sister-in-law)
- Mr. Dilettante (my brother)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(215)
-
▼
November
(20)
- Gobble gobble
- Oranges, lepruchans, and Indiana
- Anger in the Nation
- Stinger's hitting the road...again! (aka Indiana w...
- The price of honesty
- Obama and cities
- Stinger rant #3
- Recount time
- It was a good day
- Goin' to New Delhi with an achin'...in my knee
- CC-C ya later...so now what?
- Prop 8
- Houston Review 2 - They don't like Ike
- You're out of touch, I'm out of time
- Houston Review 1 - Rockin' Rockets
- Overdue preview of little probable interest - Buck...
- Iron Range shenanigans
- Shout-out to Gino
- Post-Houston, Post-Election
- Hanging in the 713 and some predictions
-
▼
November
(20)
About Me
- Mike
- I'm pushing 40, I live in suburban Minneapolis, I'm an unrepentant Sconnie, and I work in the legal services field, whatever that means. I could tell you more about my job, but then I would have to kill you. Not really, but saying that makes it sound more intriguing than it really is.
7 comments:
I understand where you're coming from, good sir.
You know what the problem is? Calling it marriage. Marriage is a word with so much historical and religious baggage that, for a lot of people, the very idea of using the word marriage for a union between a same-sex couple puts it beyond the pale.
You have to remember this, too -- historically, the purpose of a marriage is not to let a couple play house. The real reason for marriage is the protection of the children that such a union creates. I'm well aware that a hell of a lot of people have children out of wedlock and that a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't in itself invalidate the historical purpose of marriage. And just because people fall short of the ideal doesn't invalidate the ideal.
What I guess I'd ultimately suggest is the best solution is this: let's get the government out of the "marriage" business and let that word keep its historical meaning. I've always been uncomfortable with the notion of Catholic priests or other ministers being agents of the state anyway. For the purposes of the state, my 17-year marriage to Jill could just as easily be called a civil union. All the legal trappings of marriage as commonly understood would fall under that rubric and it wouldn't make a difference. If a gay couple wants to spend the rest of their life together and wants to enjoy similar legal protections to what Jill and I have, that's perfectly fine with me. For the purpose of the law, the law should consider my marriage a civil union.
If you do that, you allow the historical and religious meaning of marriage to endure. Remember this; what makes our marriage a marriage is that we've sworn before God that we will continue to keep our union together and that we will accept God's teaching and God's will as the foundation of that union. You might not remember this, but the Gospel reading when Jill and I got married was the parable Jesus told about building a foundation on solid rock, not sand. Our faith is that solid rock foundation. And remember, when Jill and I spoke our vows, the matter of children was part of the ceremony. And Ben and Maria are the fruit of our union.
I do take the rejection of Prop 8 as a rebuke to the California Supreme Court, because that's what it was. It was judicial overreach and the problem is now there's a constitutional prohibition in place concerning marriage. If these solons had simply been willing to wait a few years, chances are pretty good that some form of gay "marriage" bill would have passed. Now it will be much tougher to get to the point where people who believe as you do want to get. It certainly won't be the first time that a court has acted in such a counterproductive manner and it certainly won't be the last.
Upshot -- although I don't necessarily agree with you, you've put up a good post. I'll go read Amanda's anon.
I can agree with the idea of getting the government out of the marriage business. I am also glad you are OK with civil unions. My fear is that there are a lot of people who are against that as well...you know, slippery slope and all that. I have a real problem with people motivated by hatred of people who are unlike them.
Maybe I have to be married to understand the weight the word "marriage" carries. To me, this seems to be an argument about semantics.
If it did pass in Cali I am going to have to imagine that it will pass everywhere else that it has not already. Obama hurt the chances that it had as minorities that more than likely voted in favor of him were also more likely to be against this idea. Mainly African Americans are very conservative on this issue. Many that may not have voted if he were not up for POTUS. I have to wonder if it would have come down to a Hillary and John Contest if it would have ended up not passing. That is neither here nor there though. I am a very staunch supporter of the State and the Church staying out of the way of one another. That is why I have held the position before I even started attending Church again that Marriage is for Church and Civil Unions are for the State. If two adults would like to go before God, family, and friends then they should go to a place of their faith. If two adults would like the legal benefits, and I have heard and agree that this is what it is really about, then go before a judge. I do think that this will someday become the law of the land. I just am not sure if it will be a Federal Issue that overules the States or that most States will change or make new laws regarding this deal. Marriage is a Holy Institution that because of the ties that it has had to the State has been one of the major reasons that it has become so watered down and has lost meaning. It can only mean something to the two that are involved in that relationship. When I was still married I figured out that the only ones that could ruin my marriage were my wife and I.
Wow, a shout-out! Thank you. I will save the gravytraining joke for later; it's on file. Olbermann certainly gets over-dramatic at times, but this time I felt that he expressed exactly what has always dumbfounded me on the topic of gay marriage.
A couple additional thoughts: Anthropolgists explain that the original purpose of marriage was to build wealth and power. Inheritance rights made it important to have children in wedlock; in some societies, a union that didn't produce children was considered invalid, and the couple could separate. Relevant to today? Only in order to appreciate how society has evolved, and will keep evolving.
Separation of Church and State wouldn't be so important, if everybody willingly participated in the same religion (impossible!). Some religions in our country do sanction same-sex marriage. I've said before in conversation, that as a legal matter, perhaps all marriages should be defined as "civil unions." Just seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a (as you said, Mike) semantical arguement.
I've had it on my "to do" list for a couple of weeks to do a post on this myself. I, too, believe that most marriages today are really civil unions. I'd reserve the term "marriage" for a sacred relationship (whatever religion) where the couple pledge their fidelity to each other and commitment to live not just by the doctrines of their faith, but in the spirit (with the Spirit) as well.
A young (or old) couple who set foot in church only to get married and have no interest in becoming part of that spiritual fellowship with God and other believers really has no sacred sanction to their from either a practical or metaphysical perspective. "Holy Matrimony" should be just that, and the definition of holiness should be the purview of that particular faith or denomination. The sanctified union is a covenant, which is more than a contract.
A civil union is a legal arrangement that provides certain contractual rights and obligations. As a conservative and a believer in a "free" country, I think adults should be able to make legal contracts with each other, regardless of sexuality. Just don't presume to add any spiritual cachet or endorsement to what you're doing unless you're willing to try and live up to those standards (even if you're "straight".)
The Christian model requires both husband and wife to submit TO each other AND to God (actually, "as unto the Lord," which presumes the couple is already putting God first). If that is what you are after and wish to live up to, then call it a holy covenant; if you want something else call it a civil union. Call it "marriage", though, and I call "bullshit."
the gays are protesting all the white churches for their support of prop 8.
thing is, the blacks supported 8 in greater numbers than any other demographic.
but the gays wont protest in fron of promonent black churches. i guess demanding 'status' is one thing, and getting shot at... well, thats different.
this alone speaks a few volumes.
Quick aside...Gino, glad to see that you are improving health-wise.
Post a Comment