Culture wars- gay marriage

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Culture wars- gay marriage 02.20.04 (5:23 pm)   [edit] The debate over allowing gay couples the right to marry is heatedly under way in California, a demonstration of the importance of cultural values in society. We seem to be in the midst of a major culture war in America, as the prominence of the issue of gay marriage clearly shows. There have always been clashes in values, differences in opinions on many key issues, but there are times when these battles come to the forefront of our political atmosphere and question the unity of the nation. Examining the issue rationally and without the hindrance of biased thought, it seems obvious to me that gay marriage shouldn't be an issue at all. The union between two people (or more) is a private matter that should have nothing to do with the government. But, as it is, the government is involved in marriage. Married couples receive the benefits of tax breaks, insurance, and hospitalization visitation rights, as well as many other fairly minor things. Is a couple that remains together unmarried for many years any less a couple than if they were married? Most likely, you would agree that being a couple is not determined by marriage, just that marriage makes the commitment of a couple "official." In terms of my personal politics, marriage- gay or straight, or brother and sister or whole communites- shouldn't be in any way regulated by the government. The government should have nothing to do with private matters, such as marriage. I don't think married couples should be given different rights than non-married couples, nor do I think the commitment of marriage should be made a legally binding agreement. It is also my personal view that marriage is an immoral act. I disagree with the notion of committing to be in love forever, as that is contrary to the nature of love. Attempting to force a commitment of love is not moral to me. So, personally, I don't agree with gay marriage. I also don't agree with the marriage of heterosexual couples. However, I realize that my views are not maintained by most and I'm not likely to convince many of my position (I don't know why not, though- other than the overbearing influence of society), so I must consider the issue of gay marriage in terms of society and the law. As stated previously, the government should not be involved in private matters. Marriage itself is a private matter made legal, and that is wrong. But if marriage must be a matter involving the government, the means of intervention must be consistently sought. If a man and woman are married and receive benefits from the government, so too should two men who wish to commit to be together forever. Marriage is more a social issue than legal. The debate over gay marriage is rooted in the social views of marriage. To many in society, marriage is a religious matter. For those who view marriage as a holy bond, homosexuality is also conisdered a sin; therefore, gay marriage is a threat to these cultural values. It is obvious that gay marriage is a controversial topic and not one to be solved any time soon. The real concern should be over our legislation and the legal aspect of gay marriage, rather than the social context. Disallowing a couple to marry and receive the benefits of marriage based on who they are, whether it is race or sexual orientation, is discrimination. Our laws should not condone, and especially should not encourage, discrimination. Our legislation also should not be used to deny rights to any group of people. Any attempt by the government to take away our rights will not be successful and will not be conducive to the nation based on freedom envisioned by those who founded this nation and penned the constitution.   posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (2:30 am) Interesting how you never note that in California, marriage was defined by the people, through a vote, in the year 2000-- I believe it wasn't close at 61% to 39%. The definition of marriage was codified into law. Marriage was not created to be a benefits grab. Rather, over the past thousands of years it is government that has recognized that men and women marry, and so have tailored certain laws to suit heterosexual couples. Government, in the US, has nothing to do with marriage-- the people do. The issue here is about the law. Once again-- do the people have the right to make law, or do judges? California's law isn't discriminatory at all-- marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Benefits came around much, much, later. And by the way: where does it state-- in any constitution-- that gays have a 'right' to marry and receive benefits? This has less to do about benefits and more to do with changing the culture, a culture which is not discriminatory but is clearly more judeo-christian than the activists want. If this was merely a privacy case, SCOTUS already solved that, but telling the people of Texas that is has no right to legislate for itself. posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (9:40 am) JAMES STRIKES BACK!!!! How can you tell? Visceral hatred for gays for no apparent reason, refering to judges as being the bad guy, and that famous acronym SCOTUS (scrotum?). The argument that allowing gays to marry or have civil unions because it will destroy our cultural fabric is pretty sad. Have Canada, Germany and Holland gone to hell in a handbasket? No. I think that says enough. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (9:29 pm) Reply to: newbie Yeah, aside from the first sentence, this wasn't addressing the California thing specifically. These are just my observations on the issue of gay marriage- that I don't think the government should be involved at all. For what it's worth, I think that Newsom was wrong to go against the state law, even though I disagree with the law itself. Defiance generally isn't the best way of accomplishing something when it could be done through the encouragement of new legislation instead. Government in the US has a whole lot to do with marriage. You get married "by law." The government also gives married couples various rights that non-married couples do not receive. The way I see it, a heterosexual couple is no different (aside from the obvious) than a homosexual couple. I find any straight couple that remains together despite a clear lack of love to be immensely more disgusting than a gay couple in love. There is absolutely no reason why marriage should be limited to only one man and one woman. The judges aren't making any law by allowing gay marriages, they are only recognizing the fact that laws should not deny basic rights. It's discriminatory because of the benefits received through marriage. If there were no benefits, or if the government wasn't involved in marriage, it wouldn't matter. But, since there are benefits and the government is involved, the benefits should be received by all who choose to commit to a life partner. I think the right to marry would fall under the category of a pursuit of happiness (though that could easily be argued, as I don't believe marriage is a means of attaining happiness... but most do). Private matters should be just that; the government has no business mandated sexual orientation or sexual behavior. That's why the Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional- they violated the rights of the citizens to engage in private matters the way they see fit, not the government. I agree that the issue is more a social matter than anything else. I also agree that it is a challenge to the Judeo-Christian culture. I'd just like an explanation as to how this Judeo-Christian culture determines that homosexuality is harmful to society in any way. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (10:14 am) Reply to: newbie Actually, California's constitution guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens. No law can override the constitution. What is happening in San Francisco is a challenge to that law. So far, no court has seen fit to block what is happening because there is no evidence that any irreparable harm is occurring. It is up to the courts to decide if the law is consitutional. Saying that there is a law, but ignoring the right to address whether it is constitutional, ignores the fundimental priniciples of democracy. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (10:38 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 The government does get involved in marriage, but that's no different from the government's involvement in any other aspect of contract law. Courts have the right to intervene and to determine issues related to contracts. We generally recognize the ability of individuals to enter into contracts and for the courts to uphold them. Likewise, taxes are often determined by contractual issues. In the case of marriage, it makes perfect sense for the courts to be able to look at the issue with respect to child custody and visitation rights and other things. If there were no such thing as marriage, it would add unnecessary complications to simple issues such as who is responsible for supporting a child or whether money should pass to a spouse instead of a close friend who feels entitled. The problem with marriage is that we have a blurring of a religious or cultural custom with a legal situation. Both are called marriage, but they are very different situations. The government may care about my gender, but does not care if I procreate, get married in a church, have children, or observe any tradition related to marriage, except in some inmmigration cases, and that would be only to disprove immigration fraud. In my wife's tradition, a wedding is an agreement between families. It has no religious significance, and the ceremony is performed by family elders. In my tradition, the ceremony is performed by a religious leader. For weddings of my wife's tradition, the ceremony is not recognized by the state, and if a family elder were to sign the marriage certificate, it would most likely be considered illegal. In the case of a religious leader, he or she would be required to sign the certificate to make things legal. It would not be a legal marriage without it. We had three weddings. We had one that recognized each tradition, and the state doesn't really care about either of those ceremonies. We also had a moment before a ceremony where we were asked to sign our names to a piece of paper. Witnesses did the same and so did the religious leader. He then told us that we were now married as far as the state was concerned. There was nothing ceremonious about it. But it was technically a wedding. Finally, we had a reception. Most people who go to one would say that they went to a wedding. It's a party where a couple affirms their committment to the community. It has no legal or religious significance, but most people still call it a wedding. So the bottom line is that the "wedding" that the state recognized was a legal document that served no purpose other than forming a civil union. Anything else related to our vows or wishes was irrelevant. So the opinion that civil unions as opposed to marriage for gays makes fundimental sense. But let's not kid ourselves. It makes equal sense to use the term for heterosexuals since that's all it is. If you want to call it marriage for one group and not the other, then you are getting into semantics and are being arbitrary. It makes no inherent sense. We already have a system that allows most couples to enter into civil unions. We just use the wrong word for it. But if we are going to recognize that marriage is either a traditional union, or a civil one, then we might as well call it a marriage for anybody. The state has already redefined the term and there is no turning back. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (3:55 pm) Reply to: mblog You're absolutely right that the legal aspect of marriage is different than the religious/social/cultural side of marriage. There are two separate sides of marriage, and more than two if you consider all the various definitions of marriage. Here's a blog I wrote a while back on the differing concepts of marriage, if you're interested: http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=dragonbait22&static=71848 If it all comes down to a legal definition of marriage, only the legal aspect of marriage should be considered; that is, only the rights of the citizens to enter into a contractual agreement that allows for certain rights. Why should it be a concern of the government whether the couple wishing to marry is gay or straight? Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins