The marriage amendment passed in Tennessee 82 to 18. Maybe it's time to run a ban on interracial marriage up the flagpole again and see who gives a sieg heil.
It passed handily in Oregon two years ago, too, and we're supposedly a liberal state. I honestly can't comprehend the logic that goes into voting against society honoring and supporting a loving commitment, but there's little enough honoring and supporting going on in this country even of the "traditional" relationships, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
If it wasn't for the religious noise, it would be a simple argument, but unfortunately people can't tell their logic from their beliefs.
My view on it is this... the government has CHOSEN to put themselves in the business of sanctioning relationships. Since they have chosen to do that, they have an obligation to do it with equality. Which means, they can't forbid blacks to marry whites, they can't forbid Christians to marry Muslims, and they can't forbid men to marry men, or women to marry women. Otherwise it's discrimination, and bigotry. It's simple and straightforward. The reasons they chose to sanction marriage in the first place... financial stability, legal powers, inheritance, childcare... they all still apply. So why is it even an issue? Several reasons:
1. Hate/fear of homosexuals, so they won't support it. This is often religious in origin, and is often taught to a person as a child. It is rarer that someone converts to this viewpoint later in life of their own accord, but from what I've seen these are usually the ones who turn out to be the most dangerous. Neither here nor there regarding the marriage amendments, just sayin'.
2. Lack of understanding. People look around, see that married couples around them are male/female, and lacking any further understanding of WHY it is a good thing to allow gay marriage, they vote for the status quo, because it seems "obviously true". The wording of the amendments is usually along the line of "we wish to affirm that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman". Well, it *is* traditionally that, and if you don't have a viewpoint that it should be otherwise, there appears to be no harm in agreeing. A surprisingly large number of people fall into this category.
3. Us/them & the argument of finite resources. The viewpoint goes something like this... "I'm not gay, and if I approve of gay marriage, that just dilutes the pool of resources available to me and my family". You laugh but I've had this presented to me as an argument multiple times. For these folks, everything is divided into two camps, "us" and "everybody else", and they approach most issues this way, supporting their own side, and trying to take from the other. This behavior often goes hand-in-hand with the Christian religion. That's not a judgment, it's a statement of fact.
I don't know how long it will take to raise public consciousness of how unjust this is, but it needs to happen. It is exactly the same as race inequality. Maybe that is why it passed so handily here... I suspect a good number in this area would reverse race laws if they could too.
Sheesh, how can you not possibly understand that if the gay couple down the street gets a piece of paper, that the world will suddenly tip off it's axis and implode?
I mean, people KNOW that those eeeeevil queers exist. But for God's sake you can't actually expect people to have to LEGALLY take note of that existance do you? To be required to accept them as equivalently human as the rest of us?
I mean - it would actually validate their presence on this planet!!!
It's a health issue really. You see, if people had to stretch their tiny minds to encompase that thought, well their poor craniums would risk stress fractures from the pressure buildup. You wouldn't want that would you? All those exploding heads around town? I mean - who the hell wants to have to clean THAT up?!
OK, that's enough sarcasm from me for today.....
Personally, I found it a wonderful gift when Canada passed the legislation allowing gay marriages on my own wedding anniversary. IT seemed very appropriate to know that so many others previously discriminated against would now be able to share that joy on that same day.
sighs I've heard that arguement. it logically does not make sense OK lets see- if we talk morals- A man and a woman living together can't have partner benifits in some places without marriage but you know- nobody is barring them from marrying
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2006-11-08 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-08 10:01 pm (UTC)My view on it is this... the government has CHOSEN to put themselves in the business of sanctioning relationships. Since they have chosen to do that, they have an obligation to do it with equality. Which means, they can't forbid blacks to marry whites, they can't forbid Christians to marry Muslims, and they can't forbid men to marry men, or women to marry women. Otherwise it's discrimination, and bigotry. It's simple and straightforward. The reasons they chose to sanction marriage in the first place... financial stability, legal powers, inheritance, childcare... they all still apply. So why is it even an issue? Several reasons:
1. Hate/fear of homosexuals, so they won't support it. This is often religious in origin, and is often taught to a person as a child. It is rarer that someone converts to this viewpoint later in life of their own accord, but from what I've seen these are usually the ones who turn out to be the most dangerous. Neither here nor there regarding the marriage amendments, just sayin'.
2. Lack of understanding. People look around, see that married couples around them are male/female, and lacking any further understanding of WHY it is a good thing to allow gay marriage, they vote for the status quo, because it seems "obviously true". The wording of the amendments is usually along the line of "we wish to affirm that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman". Well, it *is* traditionally that, and if you don't have a viewpoint that it should be otherwise, there appears to be no harm in agreeing. A surprisingly large number of people fall into this category.
3. Us/them & the argument of finite resources. The viewpoint goes something like this... "I'm not gay, and if I approve of gay marriage, that just dilutes the pool of resources available to me and my family". You laugh but I've had this presented to me as an argument multiple times. For these folks, everything is divided into two camps, "us" and "everybody else", and they approach most issues this way, supporting their own side, and trying to take from the other. This behavior often goes hand-in-hand with the Christian religion. That's not a judgment, it's a statement of fact.
I don't know how long it will take to raise public consciousness of how unjust this is, but it needs to happen. It is exactly the same as race inequality. Maybe that is why it passed so handily here... I suspect a good number in this area would reverse race laws if they could too.
no subject
on 2006-11-08 03:10 pm (UTC)I mean, people KNOW that those eeeeevil queers exist. But for God's sake you can't actually expect people to have to LEGALLY take note of that existance do you? To be required to accept them as equivalently human as the rest of us?
I mean - it would actually validate their presence on this planet!!!
It's a health issue really. You see, if people had to stretch their tiny minds to encompase that thought, well their poor craniums would risk stress fractures from the pressure buildup. You wouldn't want that would you? All those exploding heads around town? I mean - who the hell wants to have to clean THAT up?!
OK, that's enough sarcasm from me for today.....
Personally, I found it a wonderful gift when Canada passed the legislation allowing gay marriages on my own wedding anniversary. IT seemed very appropriate to know that so many others previously discriminated against would now be able to share that joy on that same day.
no subject
on 2006-11-08 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-08 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-09 12:56 am (UTC)I've heard that arguement.
it logically does not make sense
OK lets see- if we talk morals-
A man and a woman living together can't have partner benifits in some places without marriage
but you know- nobody is barring them from marrying
no subject
on 2006-11-09 01:00 am (UTC)