I am, in the wake of the socially-monumental, same-sex marriage vote (re: prop 8,) pushing the controversial envelope with an open (and respectful) forum to discuss this incendiary issue. I intend to posit the best arguments on BOTH sides (and welcome feedback from you). While some may question which arguments qualify as best, or if there are really any good arguments by the opposition (whichever side of the fence you mow,) I will take only one from each. The decision will be totally subjective, but I do have my moments of serene objectivity and lucid decision-making (mind you, this comes from the same noodle that thought taking apart all the clocks in my house and putting them back together was a reasonable afternoon activity for a bored 8 yr old, but I digress)
Over the next week, as I try to round up the good, the bad and the ugly points-of-view from each lobbying group, please let me know what YOUR opinion is. I promise I will read, digest and respond to all comers (not the biggest feat considering I only have 27 followers, but still, it's the thought that counts.) I also promise that if you come up with a better argument than my own or any I've found, I will give you full credit, a chocolate chip cookie, a gold star, my favorite tee-shirt, and wash your car. If that's not enough, you'll of course have the honor of being exhalted by the 27 coolest people on the planet. How can you say no to that??
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pretty much my inconsistent ramblings from day to day (or really week to week, as of late, sorry)...titularly-inspired by a favorite movie from my youth and sadly, also my current, professional situation.
BOX SEATS TO THE Apocalypse... inBOX THAT IS
The Cult
Labels
- Art (2)
- Basketball (1)
- Blackberry (1)
- Blogs (1)
- Books (4)
- Drunk Driving (1)
- Earthquake (2)
- Facebook (3)
- Fashion (1)
- Film (2)
- Finance (1)
- Following (1)
- Food (1)
- Funny (1)
- Haiti (2)
- Health (1)
- Just Awesome (1)
- Katrina (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Login Issues (1)
- Mac (1)
- Memories (1)
- MTV (2)
- Party (2)
- Phone (1)
- Politics (3)
- Problems (1)
- Prop 8 (2)
- Rant (1)
- Reality TV (2)
- Red Cross (1)
- Religion (2)
- Same-Sex Marriage (2)
- Santa Monica (1)
- Soccer (1)
- Social Commentary (13)
- The Jersey Shore (1)
- TV (1)
- Unicef (1)
Copyright © 2009 Design by Deluxe Templates
7 comments:
Hasn't this debate been settled by a public vote...twice? Why can't the "marriage" part be dropped and every other aspect of the union be honored...like tax breaks, entitlement to "next of kin status" and so on. Why the preoccupation with the word marriage? I don't get it.
Society has escalated the importance of the word "marriage." My 4-year-old daughter already talks about who she's going to marry...and neither my wife nor I are putting these ideas in her head. So why deny something so important from part of society?
People defending "traditional" marriage claim it's always been between a man and woman. And we shouldn't change that. But when marriage was invented it was used so a man could claim a woman as his property. The woman had no rights. And only the man could divorce the woman if he chose to sell her. Marriage has changed. And should change with the times.
If people who are defending "traditional" marriage were really trying to protect marraige, they would also be trying to outlaw divorce. Divorce is more damaging to the institution of marriage than gays. If anything, gay marriage only protects the institution of marriage.
What size is the tee?
Did you copy and paste that from google? :p
I believe strongly that our kids are going to look back and marvel(with the same horror that we had about segregation and women’s suffrage) at how antiquated and preposterous it is that
two consenting adult human beings are not able to wed. A right wing senator once likened it to a man marrying a dolphin (trying to use a
mammal so he got less pushback). Um, no sir, a dolphin lives in the water and although they have a sophisticated communication system it
is not one we understand. We are HUMAN BEINGS. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman- what is the difference? As long as there is love and they
are using the institution of marriage to honor their love- then what is the big deal?! If I hear one more "nuclear family" argument I will
scream. I can't even count how many unhappy hetero couples I know that then pass their demons on to their children and subject them to
growing up in a home filled with tension. I know so many wonderful "same sex" couples who have so much love to give and want to adopt but can't because they aren't recognized legally by the system. Now I will concede that you can make this a religious thing- those "gays" cannot
receive communion because they are going against the bible but to make is a LEGAL thing? Why in the world would the government be able to
tell us who and who not to marry?! Big Brother anyone?
I'm just gonna climb up on my soapbox and pontificate here...The majority of opposition to same-sex marriage is on moral and religious grounds. I personally believe that really loving someone is the best we can achieve. The finest parts of us become apparent, and we then offer all that greatness selflessly to the one we love. I just can't believe in a higher power that would ever oppose the giving and receiving of love regardless of the gender of the participants in this exchange.
I am a gay woman legally married to my wife Tonya in the state of California. We were married on 10/08 when it was legal to do so and remain legally married in the state of California today. Together since 2002, we were able to get married because we FINALLY could; it felt amazing to be able to do so legally in front of our family and friends.
I want to share a few examples why we would like to see gay marriage federally recognized, this goes beyond California and needs to change nationally for everybody. Many people think gay couples already have access to the same rights as straight couples, but this is simply not true.
After our wedding and ruling that we were still married even with Prop 8 passing, I was excited to have Tonya see about adding me to her insurance policy at work as her "legal spouse". What we learned is that the IRS federally mandates the rules regarding benefit plans. As the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage, I can only be considered Tonya's "domestic partner" regardless of the fact that we are "legally" married in California. (We filed for domestic partnerships years ago. We also paid a lawyer nearly $4000 a few years ago to write up wills, power of attys, etc. etc. to try and protect one another legally "just in case". If our marriage was federally recognized, none of this would be necessary; we would have those rights automatically. Imagine your “domestic partner” is sick and you rush to the hospital without your power of attorney documents and you are denied access to your domestic partner’s room. Does this seem “the same” as marriage? If you think this does not happen to gay “domestic partner” couples in the U.S., you are 100% wrong.)
The difference is that Tonya can add me to her policy "after taxes" on her paycheck as a registered domestic partner. As a legally married gay couple in California, we get the pleasure of "paying more" just because we are gay, this is unfair and wrong.
Legally, gay couples cannot file joint federal tax returns, we cannot be "next of kin" in the hospital UNLESS we have legal papers drawn up and show "proof" we have a right to be there. There are many many more examples. All of this is VERY frustrating! Tonya and I are "legally" marriage in California, we want “the same” rights as married couples vs. legal federal discrimination.
I just pass along an amazing speech that Patricia Clarkson gave in June 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-clarkson/heres-to-the-violets-my-t_b_215383.html
"The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.
It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.
Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.
The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).
It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children." Excerpt from http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp
Post a Comment