It is about time our country moved towards getting something right with gay marriage and the Supreme Court's Ruling on DOMA. After the obscene amount of money spent and media coverage over the judicial proceedings, I was left with only one question: Why did we care in the first place? I can't remember the last time I saw a more pointless argument ensue. I can't come up with any logical argument to say two human beings on this planet cannot be joined in marriage, whether its homosexual or heterosexual.
We live in a secular nation, meaning there is a seperation of church and state. While the lines are often blurred, this means no religious bias should have any right to be of influence in this nation's court of law. Your religious affiliation holds no weight in my mind in deciding if it is someone's right as a human to solidify a lifetime bond with another human being they hold dearly. Homosexual couples pay taxes, have jobs and mind their own business as much as the next couple. Please explain to me how the homosexual couple down the street living happily in their cozy, split-level home has any impact on your own marriage and the "sanctity" of the bond you share with your spouse. It may be against your religious views, but those are your views and not everyone else's. They also have no place in this country's judicial system. I am not saying you should not be in disagreement and you certainly can be, but that does not mean we can strip contributing citizens of a basic human right of companionship on the grounds of homosexuality. They are not seeking your approval, just their equal share of human rights.
Also, for those defending the "sanctity" of marriage, please read an article or two about the divorce rate in this country. While the urban myth of a 50% divorce rate is grossly inaccurate, we are looking at about 3.6 divorces versus 6.2 marriages for every 1,000 citizens in the US. Those numbers to me do not give the indication of a sacred, lifetime commitment to another. Between the proliferation of extramarital affairs promulgated by TV and the internet and the obscene battles ensuing in divorce court over petty, materialistic items, I can hardly say heterosexual couples have succeeded in defending that "sanctity."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a reflection of the power that religion and the evangelical religious right play in American society and politics. This is not a matter of logic. as you have so clearly shown, there is no strand of factual logic that should lead to the restriction of marriage on any citizen. However there are, believe it or not, millions of Americans who proudly uphold selective laws of the bible, such as the opposition to gay marriage, with the firm belief they are upholding the word of their god. The United States may claim to be secular, but it's people are most definitely not. The persuasion of conservative, typically southern states, is based on a population that largely cherishes and envelopes itself in it's closemindedness. The population does not seek progression or forward thinking. Religion is a firm institution in much of the south; it provides community, tradition, and structure. It is a social expectation to respect the church and it's word. Not many churches are preaching progression. In essence they must teach tradition, and they must preach to only uphold tradition. (God forbid something come along like SCIENCE or CIVIL RIGHTS that would uproot the falsely interpreted words of the prophet Jesus!!) When politicians make their run for their seat, they are expected to voice the overall opinions of their supporters; in certain states this is the voice of the southern Baptist, the evangelical Methodist, and Joel Osteen and his Power House of a hundred thousand "believers". Many of the congressmen who have consistently voted against gay marriage laws have been rumored to speak in private about how they do not personally oppose gay marriage. But they must, under the pressure of keeping their position, continue to push the views of those they represent. So, when you look at the issue from this standpoint, resolution must trickle down in the same manner this inequality has trickled up. As we have seen through this issue itself, you cannot attack the church , as its members and voice only grows louder and more blind against any opposition. It is only logic and further removal of the negative impacts of the institution of religion from our country that will allow law makers and politicians to progress the forward thinking, and overall positive changes that its more intelligent, thoughtful, fair, and worldly citizens desire.
ReplyDeleteAnd luckily for us this is a very isolated population of American citizens so stubborn in their sometimes outdated, antiquated beliefs. Coming from a religious family myself, I know there are many church-goers out there with a belief in progress and an excited acceptance to change. We will always have portions of society so stuck in their ways that any attempt at a serious, intellectual conversation pertaining to changing norms in contemporary society would be an exercise in futility. I did not mean to say that their views were wrong and were to be kept to themselves, but there is a time and a place and our law-making bodies in this country is not that place. True, religion still continues to play a significant role in politics today (just recite the pledge of allegiance) but that is an injustice of a secular nation. We need to work more to clarify the line between church and state so that we may make more unbiased decisions to move our country forward without the influence of vastly diverse religious affiliations. The bickering surrounding such laws involving an essence of religious overtones clouds our governmental bodies from addressing other areas of real concern such as the tremendous amount of debt we are piling up in the face of one of the largest financial strains in US government history to be brought on by Baby Boomer Retirement (there is already obscene amounts of unfunded obligations in the Social Security system from our current retirees paid for with Chinese loans). And I am glad you mentioned "under the pressure of keeping their position." This is a point I tried to address in my last post in that politicians today are too afraid to voice actual opinions for the sake of sacrificing a shot at reelection. These are not stupid people we are talking about, they know the direction for the most part this country must head in. However, there are alot of ignorant people out there who do not have the necessary understanding to comprehend the impetus for change. It takes a real statesman to advocate in the face of adversity for significant socioeconomic, geopolitical, and environmental change. But I think overall we are in agreement here, there will always be those resistant to that which they do not know and will be left behind as the rest of this nation progresses forward in an increasingly transparent, interconnected world.
DeleteA simple....AMEN!
ReplyDelete