This is an unpopular stance in this state.
The legislature of California has narrowly pushed through a bill allowing marriage contracts between homosexual partners. The governor has said he must veto the bill because it is in stark opposition to the majority vote in the state.
He is correct. The majority of voters have said that "marriage" is a union of man and woman. And duhh, don't we Americans quack regularly about how great Democracy is? Majority vote wins. Minority vote loses.
I am all for domestic partnership rights. Whether the partners have sex or not is not of any interest to me. With times as tough as they are, two senior citizens ought to have the right to bind themselves together in order to survive, whether they can have sex or not. Two young women with children ought to be able to form a partnership that allows them to raise their children, whether or not they are lesbians. Same with men -- what if they are just close but not sexually active with each other? Should they be discriminated against just because they can't "marry" -- and doesn't "marry" carry with it the suggestion that sex is demanded? I mean, marriages are annulled (declared null and void) if no sex occurs?
Here's my thought: two struggling people (call them whatever gender you prefer) get together to try to get by in a society that sports high prices on food and housing. They make it through 10 tough years, but in the end, find their interests and careers and habits too much to deal with, and they separate. As a domestic partnership, they have obligations to each other. If they weren't homosexual, and didn't have sex, even if they filed for "marriage," they have nothing -- because with no sex, there is no marriage.
And if "marriage" is the important part, then why don't people just find some sympathetic minister to perform a ceremony and issue his/her own certificate? Does the state have to endorse that? Isn't it enough if the state recognizes domestic partnerships?
I don't know.
I do know that in a democracy, we all scream for a chance to vote. And if the vote doesn't count, then WTF does?
5 comments:
I apologise, but I have to disagree with you. Many evils have been achieved via a majority vote.
If the majority voted to remove your right to privacy and free speech, I am sure that that would not be ok with you.
What about your blog? What if most of the people reading your blog did not share your views and voted it as objectionable and it got removed. Would this be ok? I think not.
Wow. An anonymous opposer to democracy. Soo... what legal system do they propose?
Interesting, PoV, Sand, suggesting that provisions should be made for everyone who sets up a permanent household together, regardless of sexual orientation or even whether or not they're having sex.
I've been of the opinion that the breaks and benefits associated with hetero marriages should be de-associated with who someone is banging and be properly oriented around the children -- you need those breaks and benefits if you're raising children with someone, regardless of whether you are gay or straight, and Dual-Income No Kids hetero couples don't need those benefits and breaks any more than a homosexual couple does, so it's ridiculous that DINK straights can get them but DINK gay couples can't. But you're right - my system doesn't necessarily address what happens to joint property when your housemate of ten years moves on.
I do think that sex between consenting adults is, like religion between consenting adults, something the government should stay out of. And therefore I think that a lot of the gender specifics need to be taken out of current laws surrounding marriage. But there's a function for those protections, and that function needs to be considered.
Am I being overly optimistic if I say that I think a more carefully worded law to allow gay marriage would make it past voters?
It's nice to see that the legislative body of the state is openminded, but I'm also glad to see the Governor is respectful of the people's vote - which says that the law as it stood did not meet their approval.
I say thumbs up all the way around and let's see another try at refining the wording of the law.
No apology is necessary in the case of differing opinions.
I lived without privacy or free speech for 20 years in my parents' house. Sometimes one has to be "ok" with the situation in which one lives.
Having served on jury duty a number of times in my life, I understand well how unfair the law can be. However, while the laws stand, the laws are to be upheld. We can posture and rant and curse and hate all we want, but the law is there, until it is changed in a manner satisfactory to the governing system.
I had to chuckle at the gubernator's declaration that the people or the courts should decide. Out here in the other 49, the people elect legislators with the assumption that they will write laws. It's their job. And didn't I hear that legislating from the bench is bad? Eh, maybe that was six years ago.
The civil act of marriage is, and should remain, different from the religious ceremony of matrimony. Churches already set their own rules about when they will consecrate a marriage, and that would not change at all if civil unions were legalized.
Despite what the "holy sanctity of heterosexual marriage" crowd says, there are plenty of people who get married every day who do not meet their standards - nonbelievers, those who choose not to have children, or cannot, the celibate, Kevin Federline - should we all have to submit to premarital screening and periodic reviews to make sure we still deserve to be married? Throw that out there for the people to decide and see what happens.
Oh, and "Anonymous"? You are right. Sometimes the majority are dumbasses. It's a phenomenon my church-sanctioned husband and I experience in four year cycles - just not the same four years.
Post a Comment