One small victory for good and freedom:
Gay marriage Constitutional amendment defeated
In a highly unusual instance of doing the right thing, the Senate defeated passage of a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. While I am not gay myself, I have at least two big reasons for being opposed to a gay-marriage ban.
First, while my marriage is heterosexual, it is also interracial. One thing that has been very obvious to me about the gay marriage debate is that the same arguments used in opposition to it are virtually identical to the arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage 40-50 years ago. I suspect that similar arguments were also made against interfaith and interethnic marriages in the more distant past.
The second reason is that this is simply the right thing to do. The bible-thumpers and religious homophobes may disagree (and may not like being called homophobes, but that's exactly what people with those beliefs are), but their sense of good has been overriden by religious dogma--dogma which states ever so emphatically that it is good, that it has a monopoly on morality and defining what's good. But actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of those working to ban gay marriage are screaming with venom, "I hate you!"
Our Constitution was always intended to be a document which protects the rights of the individual while limiting the power of the state. Most of the amendments to it have been to further those goals, with the notable exceptions of Prohibition and the income tax. The former was later repealed, and well, we can see the results of the latter. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be another step in the wrong direction. It would be saying that all Americans are not equal and do not enjoy the same fundamental liberties as others. It would say that a majority sees fit to restrict the freedoms of a minority because they find that minority's actions personally distasteful, even though those actions do no harm to others.
Had this atrocious piece of crap actually passed and become part of our Constitution, do you really think that those who favored its passage would stop there? I don't. Why wouldn't they then want to go on and ban other forms of marriage that they found to be against their personal religious beliefs? Interracial marriages were illegal once, and the reasons cited were the same; why wouldn't these same people push to outlaw it once again? Why not outlaw civil marriages, too? In one stroke, that would eliminate both interfaith marriages, and marriages by anyone who's not religious. Outrageous, you claim? Now, yes. But once the country has acclimated to a ban on one form of marriage, it will be ready for others. And future bans will be much easier, once the precedents have been set.
Repubs and the religious right need to get the hell out of America's bedrooms, and stay out. How consenting adults live and love, is none of their business.
Addendum: This blogger has a funny--and scary--post about what marriage laws would be like if such laws strictly conformed to biblical standards. Yikes!
First, while my marriage is heterosexual, it is also interracial. One thing that has been very obvious to me about the gay marriage debate is that the same arguments used in opposition to it are virtually identical to the arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage 40-50 years ago. I suspect that similar arguments were also made against interfaith and interethnic marriages in the more distant past.
The second reason is that this is simply the right thing to do. The bible-thumpers and religious homophobes may disagree (and may not like being called homophobes, but that's exactly what people with those beliefs are), but their sense of good has been overriden by religious dogma--dogma which states ever so emphatically that it is good, that it has a monopoly on morality and defining what's good. But actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of those working to ban gay marriage are screaming with venom, "I hate you!"
Our Constitution was always intended to be a document which protects the rights of the individual while limiting the power of the state. Most of the amendments to it have been to further those goals, with the notable exceptions of Prohibition and the income tax. The former was later repealed, and well, we can see the results of the latter. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be another step in the wrong direction. It would be saying that all Americans are not equal and do not enjoy the same fundamental liberties as others. It would say that a majority sees fit to restrict the freedoms of a minority because they find that minority's actions personally distasteful, even though those actions do no harm to others.
Had this atrocious piece of crap actually passed and become part of our Constitution, do you really think that those who favored its passage would stop there? I don't. Why wouldn't they then want to go on and ban other forms of marriage that they found to be against their personal religious beliefs? Interracial marriages were illegal once, and the reasons cited were the same; why wouldn't these same people push to outlaw it once again? Why not outlaw civil marriages, too? In one stroke, that would eliminate both interfaith marriages, and marriages by anyone who's not religious. Outrageous, you claim? Now, yes. But once the country has acclimated to a ban on one form of marriage, it will be ready for others. And future bans will be much easier, once the precedents have been set.
Repubs and the religious right need to get the hell out of America's bedrooms, and stay out. How consenting adults live and love, is none of their business.
Addendum: This blogger has a funny--and scary--post about what marriage laws would be like if such laws strictly conformed to biblical standards. Yikes!
posted by Unknown at
6/07/2006 12:54:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home