How A Decade of Same Sex Marriage In Massachusetts Has Damaged Marriage, Family and Religious Liberty « Cherilyn Eagar
This is an interesting article. It is very bias.
My own opinion on the subject is that Marriage and a civil contract should never have been made one and the same. It is a combination of state and religion that should be corrected.
The civil union, like any legal contract, should be available to anyone and everyone.
Marriage, which is largely a religious concept, should be left to the religion whom they will or will not marry.
This would have kept the one real problem I see (discrimination against religion) out of the mix. Its definitely present based on this article, and it would surprise me if its not true.
My own opinion on the subject is that Marriage and a civil contract should never have been made one and the same. It is a combination of state and religion that should be corrected.
The civil union, like any legal contract, should be available to anyone and everyone.
Marriage, which is largely a religious concept, should be left to the religion whom they will or will not marry.
This would have kept the one real problem I see (discrimination against religion) out of the mix. Its definitely present based on this article, and it would surprise me if its not true.
If marriage and civil union were separated and the government did not have anything tied to marriage this is no longer an issue.
One thing I read in a different article was that two single mothers who were not lesbian were wedding in order to get the advantages of two parents in the house and all the legal implications of the civil union between them and for there children. They should not be required to enter anything other than the legal contract of a civil union to get this.
I see the marriage and civil union as two seperate things that have been joined together within our laws. Government needs to stay out of a lot of things, Marriage is just one of many
Regards,
O.A.
Because really, If I re-married my ex (dear god, please no...;-) ) or married my BFF or, hell, even my pet cat (comment wisely withheld) just HOW does it affect someone else? OK, maybe it makes them "Uncomfortable" or even "Sick" to think of it, but by God, there are some colognes that make me sick or uncomfortable, and I hold my tounge, because IT AIN'T NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. PERIOD. (Even IF that cologne smells like Eau D' Katbox...)
Unless you live your life looking through other people's bedroom windows (and if you do, then I suspect your local gendarme would like to have a few words with you) how somoene else lives their life CAN'T affect you.
It's the lie of "It will damage marriage"... well, if someone being married to someone else messes up YOUR marriage, then your marriage apparently wasn't that strong to begin with.
Sorry, I'm done, you can have the soapbox back.
I do not think most of the reasons specified on this article work, make sense or are much more than people attempting to control others lives. Articles with this tone are why I stopped calling myself a conservative nearly 20 years ago.
I want a free society with government out of the picture anywhere it can be. That means out of the picture on what a church chooses to do, and what individuals choose to do. With the exception of legal benifits of a civil union the rest of what marriage is or is not can only be determined by the individual getting married adn the church performing the marriage. If those parties are all OK with same sex, polygamy, bigamy or anything between those old enough to make there own choices government has no part in it. Either in forcing a church to provide marriages or forcing people not to marry.
1. Same sex couple goes to a church to get married.
2. Church denies them marriage as that faith does not belief in same sex marriage.
3. Couple sues church on grounds of discrimination.
4. Church is forced to marry them, or stop performing marriages.
I am of a faith that believes marriage is between a man and a woman. If you do not separate civil union from marriage the scenario above is all to likely at some point in the future.
Does this make sense to you?
Everyone has the right to believe in and practice whatever form of marriage they choose to do so. The lack of separation of church and state in civil unions and marriage makes it so a suit like the one outlined above would be possible. that in turn takes away my rights to marry under my belief structure. I do not want that removed, nor do I want the gay couple that lives down the street from me to be denied the rights of a civil union.
Hope that helps.
If the state has been allowed and sanctioned to perform marriages - then why should a religion claim to preempt the state's right? To wit - "We didn't sanctify such state marriages, but we didn't fight them until those gays wanted to get married, now our faith says the state must do as our religion tells them to and not let *them* get married because *we* are opposed to it.
In for a penny... in for a pound.
Further, your assertions puzzle me - by stating first "Everyone has the right to believe in and practice whatever form of marriage they choose to do so." and then saying they don't, if they're in a specific class of people.
Personally - I don't believe in this whole "separate but equal" fallacy - any of us who lived in the Jim Crowe era rarely do, having seen just how unequal that was.
You do have the right to any set of beliefs you choose... I would never deny your beliefs... even if they were abhorrent to me... but your right of your beliefs does not extend to others who may not share your beliefs.
Hope that helps.
I fully support civil unions for all. Its a government contract with legal benefits that should be available for all. When the law starts to say marriage for all that's a different story as you illustrate with the case you mentioned. Now its just a matter of time before some anti religious judge and activist lawyer get a ruling that is the other way around. Why leave that gate open?
If parents don't like the curriculum being presented in public schools, they can send their kids to a private school or do home school. To me, the complaints against LGBT issues being presented in schools seems no different from the complaints against racial integration in schools back in 1956:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/white-...
Anti-discrimination legislation in businesses is good. We already have such legislation for race, ethnicity, national origin, sex/gender, religion, and people with disabilities. To extend those same legal protections to members of the LGBT community is only logical.
The would-be lawyer who failed the bar exam because he refused to answer a question about same-sex marriage laws deserved to fail. You can't just refuse to answer a question on a test and expect to still pass. The purpose of the bar exam is to ensure that lawyers know and understand the law. Regardless of what his personal stance is, he still needs to be aware of what the law says. I don't know about you, but I don't want a legal system full of lawyers and attorneys who are ignorant about the law.
They point out that public officials are fearful of taking away rights, but I have to ask... why is that a problem? Do we really want a society where politicians have no fear about taking away the rights of individuals?
As for issues with domestic violence, that's an issue with straight couples, too. Is the article really trying to say that gay couples are somehow worse than straight couples because they both have the exact same kinds of marital problems? That seems like a double standard to me...
Regarding adoption centers, it's good that employees are being trained to deal with LGBT parents. All members of society have a right to be free from discrimination and persecution.
The article claims that homophobic churches were supposedly "terrorized" by activists, but I have a sneaking suspicion that all that really happened was protest groups gathered outside the churches. If we're going to forbid LGBT activists from holding signs and protesting outside homophobic churches, then can we also forbid the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting at funerals and other events? After all, if we're going to place legal restrictions on protesting and public demonstrations, such laws would need to be applied equally to everyone. Personally, I would rather we just kept freedom of speech.
The article lists "Damage to children and society" as a bullet point, which is absurd. It's not damaging at all. They claim gay activity has supposedly risen 50%, but I suspect it's more likely that level of activity has actually remained about the same, and it's just not being hidden anymore. As for transgender children having their gender identities respected by schools, that's also a good thing. Every medical association in the United States acknowledges that transsexualism has a biological basis.
Basically almost everything on the list amounts to nothing more than intolerant groups crying, "Boo hoo, we're not allowed to exercise our bigotry and persecute people we hate anymore."
Please, give me a break.
The law needs to look at all things equally. I do not thin any rational person can say that a religion and the LGBT communities are treated equally today. Say your not interested in religion and do not believe in god on a talk show whats likely to happen to you? Say you like lady parts and not guy parts and look what happened.
Public sentiment is not eliminating discrimination, its simply changing the targets. That was about the only valid point of the entire article and it was poorly articulated.