That's the title of an op-ed piece in the Rutland (VT) Herald. Here are a couple of highlights:
Freedom-to-marry advocates have launched an effort to persuade the Vermont Legislature to approve a bill allowing for gay marriage. Passage of a gay marriage bill will not happen overnight, but it is a cause worth supporting.
Action on the issue is not compelled this time by a court decision, and it does not need to begin tomorrow. Rather, action is compelled by our understanding of the meaning of equality. It is time to take another look at the issue.
It's that kind of balanced, well reasoned approach that just drives opponents of equality crazy.
Good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is marriage a religious institution?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop our belly aching about the issue of “gay marriage” until our work is done, and we have all the same rights that we deserve. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that even many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. Besides many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. Does that then mean that married couples with children are less married? Or does it mean that they shouldn’t have sexual relations even though they know it will not produce children. I wonder then why God would make sexuality very pleasurable. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable if it were only for the purpose of having children. Beside we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
Aaron, you're not the only one not satisfied with the separate but 'equal' (it isn't even equal) civil unions. I agree completely with your wonderful, well-crafted rant. I just have one small additional point to bring up.
ReplyDeleteIf marriage was the religious institution that some claim it is, what about the people, churches, and denominations who are for same-sex marriage because of their faith, their religion? We supposedly have a freedom of religion clause in our Bill of Rights, don't we? Aren't the religious rights of these peoples/churches/denominations important? Just because others disagree with their interpretation doesn't mean their rights should be trampled. In short, the whole argument against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.