Here is a shocker, I have been reading the boards regarding this issue, and as expected, at least for me, it boils down to just two issues:
Religion and the dreaded, ICK FACTOR.
Well, Religion is moot. My Religion has no problem with Homosexuals, so since my religion is just as protected as any other, according to the United States Constitution, this entire premises cancels out.
Now, as far as the ICK factor, I find it completely ICKY when some old guy marries some young woman, or when some old woman marries a young guy, or when a short fat guy marries a willowy gorgeous woman, or when a gross hag marries some Fabio knock-off, or when two trolls that look like they just slithered off the set of 'The Hill's have Eyes' Marry......and even plan to reproduce...ICK
So, should my ICK factor be considered when the application for marriage licenses are given?
Of course not.
But I do have a solution:
IF you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't. If you don't want to attend the wedding that is same gender, then don't. If you don't want to consider them married, then don't.
If you don't want to attend churches that preform same gender marriages, then don't.
Yeah see, that is what freedom and equality is all about, and isn't that what this is really about? Isn't the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness really what we are talking about?
But another important 'DON'T' is don't take the rights away from those that want the very thing you want, to marry and make a LEGAL commitment to the person they love.
So to those that find this so horrible, you are free in our system to refer to it as you wish, but long ago, we have learned that 'separate but equal' is not viable, but because this great country of ours also offers freedom of speech, and expression, you have the RIGHT to refer to same sex/gender marriage as a civil union, but under the LAW, they are married and have all the benefits, pros, cons, ups, downs, sickness and health, all the things that make a
MARRIAGE.
I enjoyed reading your post. However, do be careful when you start talking about churches.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the legal agreement (what the state refers to as marriage) should not discriminate based on sex. I think that people should not expect that religious institutions will suddenly open thier arms to them.
Just because the state allows you to enter into the contract, does not imply that the churches will suddenly believe differently about the lifestyle. Just as I don't think that legal marriage should be an issue, I really hope that we don't see people trying to force the church to recognize them as married.
Freedom to believe is still freedom. To say that one faith should be changed, is to say that the government controls the faith. Dangerous precident.
The Dreadmuse
www.dreadmuse.com
Love the blog
Thank you, dreadmuse.
ReplyDeleteI realize that some Churches will never accept, but some do, and for those so opposed it is their right to avoid such churches.
I have read many of your thoughts, and if ever you wish to offer a blog, please email me at
wileywiccan@gmail.com
I would be very happy to welcome you as a guest blogger, any issue you would like or anyone else.
Thank you again for visiting.
Great Job. But by now we are used to that. LOL
ReplyDeleteI have been screaming this for years. This is a civil rights issue. God, Religion, Jesus, and the Bible have nothing to do with this.
I just want everyone to have the right to the same protection that I and my husband are entitled to.
IMO this is just going to have to be forced. I as a voter I have NO right to vote on the civil rights of American Citizens. What makes anyone think they do have such a right? The only explanation I can come up with is ARROGANCE and CONTROL and FEAR.
Well folks, GET OVER IT. Like it or not this is going to happen. If not this time, then the next, or maybe the next, I can't tell you exactly when, but this much I know. It will happen.
I will be the first in line for the party when it does!!!!!!
Dreadmuse, fair enough point, but speaking for gays and lesbians I don't really think you need to worry about churchs being forced to marry same sex couples if they don't want to. Currently if a nice jewish couple walked into the rectory at the local catholic church and asked father O'Riley to marry them he would not be under any obligation to marry a non-catholic couple. Neither is any other clergy from any other denomination under an obligation to marry people who are not of their faith. That isn't going to change.
ReplyDeleteNot even the most militant activist is suggesting we force those who don't want to do so to perform weddings. All we are asking for is the right to have our unions recognised by civil authority.
When and if Jen and I can legally marry the civil ramifications are going to be our primary concern. We would be married by an ordained minister, because we are both spiritual persons. If it were only a question of being married before god or the goddess we can already do that. Many churches and clergy will happily perform commitment ceremonies for same sex couples. But many of us choose not go the path of commitment ceremonies because to us it is only a reminder that we are viewed as second class citizens.
Jen and I both want to walk down an aisle and be joined in holy matrimony. Neither one of us is willing to do so until we are given the same rights and responsibilities as as our hetero friends and family had when they were married.
I just had to post again on this topic, largely because I want to mention Mildred Loving, who passed away on May 2nd of ths year.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Loving was a woman of Afrcian, and Native American descent who married a white man and was arrested by the State of Virigina for committing the heinous sin of interracial marriage, they avoided prison sentences by agreeing to leave the State of Virginia for 25 years. The case of Loving vs. Virginia eventually went to the Supreme Court, largely because Mr. and Mrs. Loving wanted to be able to visit family in Virigina without risk of being sent to prison. It was only in 1967 that the U.S. Supreme court ruled that interracial marriage was legal. This is on the one hand mind boggling to me. I was alive in 1967 and it just seems unreal to me that at some point in my life the color of one's skin could be viewed as a bar to marriage and a reason to send some to prison. It also gives me great hope, in the course of my life we have gone from it being a felony to something that only a small minority of reactionaries would oppose. Mrs. Loving before her death spoke in support of gay marriage. I hope that in 40 years same sex marriage will be viewed the same way. With mild embarassment and some bewilderment that we as a society at one time thought sexual orientation was a reason to deny people equal rights
Marriage, like a drivers license, is not a right but a privilege. Homosexuals pretending this is a civil rights issue doesn't make it so. If you don't have the qualifications to get a drivers license then you're SOL, same goes for SSM, not an issue of "rights" just a case of they don't qualify.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true a driver's licence is a privilege, the same cannot be said for the right to marry.
ReplyDeleteDriver's licences are not refused to people due to race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation, the only requirement is that you can pass the proper tests.
The only 'test' one has to pass to be married, is to be of legal age, and have the desire to spend the rest of their life with the person they love.
Therein, lies the difference.
I disagree, the only "test" is not age, in all but 3 states gender is also a "test", you also have to be human, you can't have more than one, they have to be living, etc etc. Tests, conditions qualifications these all make marriage a privilege and seems the vast majority of Americans agree.
ReplyDeleteComparing race to homosexuality doesn't work either, race is immutable and innate, when it comes to homosexuality it is up in the air, no proof either way.
The vast majority of Americans have agreed on many things throughout history that was against humanity.
ReplyDeleteI of course disagree about comparing race and sexual orientation, because like sexual orientation, I believe, and there are some scientific facts to support this argument, one is born to be who they are.
But even if homosexuality is a choice, that is what freedom is all about, and as long as homosexuals are required to pay taxes, then they too, should be afforded the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.