Should Gays be Allowed to Marry or Something Else?
There is so much controversy over California’s recent Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage. The Mormon Church and other churches especially worked very hard to be sure that the proposition passed.
Now gay activists are angry. They don’t want gays to be discriminated against. Gay people want straight people to be more tolerant and understanding and are taking this personally. All they want is to have the same rights as anyone else – the freedom to marry their life partners.
I think a lot of people voted yes for this proposition because they were angry that they had already voted once and had their votes overturned by the courts. I think that gays should be more tolerant of that fact and realize that if it were to happen again, it could be a reverse situation where their vote was dismissed.
Also, I think gays aren’t trying to understand the other side where people just want to keep marriage sacred and between a man and a woman.
But, I also understand that gay people just want to be a part of the mainstream, live normal lives and dedicate their lives to their life partners. They want it legal and they want it to also be a sacred union.
This is the part that I’m not understanding. Instead of forming sides and fighting over this, why can’t there be a compromise? Why can’t someone come up with a plan that gives gays the right to marry but just change the word? I won’t be so arrogant as to suggest the phrasing. But then there would be no problem. Please try to understand that some of us who have always heard the word “wife” or “husband” applied to a woman and a man. It’s not easy to give that up. Do those words and marriage and wedding have to be the same? I would truly think that they would want their own words. “His husband” and “her wife” sound so awkward to me.
I would think that since this is such a special uniting that there could be some terminology applied that would be as sacred and special to gays that they would be insulted if a man and a woman tried to have that kind of ceremony and coupling. We’ve always heard that there are a lot of creative gays, surely they can come together and come up with their own uniting ceremony and terminology.
I’m probably naive but to me, it’s basically an issue about words. Someone needs a plan. I think gays would get the vote if those who have thought one way their entire lives, wouldn’t feel that their own institutions were being threatened. Take our poll to find out.
There are always going to be those who think that gays are self created and are against them. And, I doubt you’re going to change their minds. But you’re also going to find that there were many who voted yes on Proposition 8 – not to take away gay rights but to preserve their own traditional values, and to let the judges and courts know that their votes count.
6 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
Truly, the wording is what it all comes down to. It’s the idea that they want gay marriage viewed as an equal alternative to traditional marriage that is very offensive to many people anti-gay marriage.
They already have had Registered Domestic Partnerships created for them. While they say that not all the same rights are included in these partnerships, they’re talking about that on a federal level, because on a state level . . .
“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses” (California Family Code 297.5).
It’s so ironic how they bash on the institution of marriage and rant on and on about how high its failure rate is and all the atrocities that occur within marriages, yet for some reason they still want to be a part of this? You would think they would be much more desirable of a new term specifically for them (such as Registered Domestic Partnerships).
why were African-Americans so upset about having to sit at the back of the bus? i mean, they still got where they needed to go, riding on the same path as white folks, bumps and all.
and why did they make such a fuss over separate drinking fountains? they still got to drink the same water from the same water system, however over-chlorinated.
and why was it such a problem that they had to go to the back door of restaurants to be served? it was the same food. it might have even been bad food…
‘Separate but Equal’ is not a new idea in America. It is also not a good idea now any more than it was in the bad old days of segregation. With regard to race, our nation slowly learned that you simply can’t recognize any legal distinction between citizens and still assert that they are equal under the law. Just recognizing a difference under law is by definition, discrimination.
If, as you say, a person’s motivation is merely “to keep marriage sacred between a man and a woman.” then his/her argument is with the government, not with gay people. By definition, nothing the government does can be considered ’sacred.’ It’s in the 1st amendment. Yet there are hundreds of ‘marriage’ laws instituted by our secular government. This means that in the US marriage is no longer merely sacred, but secular. Government licenses and administers marriage, and sets forth specific rights and privileges which married citizens may claim. Once the law offers a contract with specific benefits and chooses to call it ‘marriage’ then it is discrimination to withhold access to ‘marriage’ to some citizens. Even offering them a ’similar’ contract with a different name is still discrimination.
If it is really the sanctity of marriage people want to preserve they should demand that the government get out of the marriage business. If ‘domestic partnerships’ are just as good, then the government should not need to offer ‘marriages’ to anyone, right? Domestic partnerships for all! Gay and straight. Leave ‘marriage’ or any other ’sacred words’ to the churches or to whatever persons or groups choose to offer their services to solemnize these partnerships.
To claim that gay people shouldn’t insist on the legal right to the term ‘marriage’ is to claim that straight people SHOULD have an exclusive LEGAL right. You may feel that straight people have a moral right or a traditional right or even a sacred right to ‘marriage,’ But prop 8 does not amend our ethics, traditions or morals, it amends the LAW, and the law should not separate one group from another.
Even if there were NO other legal right at stake than to call your union a ‘marriage’ (which is just not the case) the law should not give that right to some and not all. If gays should not have that right, no one should. IF you oppose gay marriage, then lobby to take the word marriage completely out of all laws and regulations. Have the courage to insist on equality under law for all your fellow citizens, even those whose lives and choices are different than yours.
Preserving the definition of a word is a pretty flimsy reason to create a separate class of citizen under the constitution. Especially since that definition is already changing in the culture, no matter what the law says. Straight people should not have the right to claim a special legal status just because the feel it is ’sacred’.
And by the way, thanks for blogging. My opinion, while strongly held, is not meant to insult or demean others that may feel differently. If I’m right (and I believe I am) then people will come around to my side, given enough time. Peace
well said, Meisnerman. balanced, intelligent, and without vitriol. change can only come when all sides come together to have a respectful conversation. thanks for reminding me.
[...] John and I agree on Marriage and Civil Partnerships The other day I took a poll and in my blog I stated that I thought that California’s Proposition 8 failed because there are those who [...]
Pingback by Elton John and I agree on Marriage and Civil Partnerships « My View by Sandra | November 18, 2008 |