Changing Times
As I sit here and digest some of the latest Supreme Court decisions, I keep coming back to the gay-marriage item.
Yes, I agree with the Supremes on this one: it is a state's rights issue and I am an ardent supporter of the 10th Amendment.
If you're gay and want the union recognized, move to Massachusetts. But don't go to Missouri and ask for the same protection.
As I read on about homosexually-related issues, I am reminded of a conversation I had with a friend a few years ago:
It was early 2001. Bush had just won the election. My friend and I were walking through Center City Philadelphia (back when I tried to be a healthy person). Our usual walk took us through part of the gay-friendly section of Philadelphia. Back then, just about every car had rainbow pinstripes, rainbow license plate frames, pink triangles, equal signs, etc,...
I ruminated what the country was looking forward to after eight years of a liberal, gay-friendly administration. I was of the view that things would change. My friend was not. Some time soon, I'll have to take that walk again and see if I can count to rainbows on one hand.
posted by TheBitterAmerican @ 1:15 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I'm going to play devil's advocate here for you, TrekMed. On one hand, I too am a great supporter for State Rights.
However... and a big however... there are certain standards that need to exist across the States. Things like a driver's license and vehicle registrations allow us to travel from one state to the next and our status recognized equally in all. We merely need to obey the specific state laws while in that state.
Take also high school academic levels. That too should be standardized so that a grad from one state is also recognized as a grad from another.
Since the gov't decided to poke it's nose into marriage, a rite born of religion, in order to bestow bennies on a married couple, this too should be a standard so that those married in one state can move (perhaps for job relocation) without repercussions to their families.
For a country that preaches diversity, making gay marriage legal in one or two states will destroy the melting pot of citizenry in those states and they will become bastions of gay/lesbians, dominating the state's politics.
Not exactly "American", yes? Couldn't be more "separatist" in nature, and I thought we got rid of that stuff in the 50s.
Personally, I believe marriage should remain a religious rite of man/woman. But I also firmly believe that same sex couples should enjoy partner/family benefits as well.
The answer to the dilemma is a civil union... or whatever damn word they want to use as long as it isn't marriage. At this moment, same sex couples can benefit from most of what married couples do, but there are more hoops to jump. ala powers of attorney, wills, etc.
Packaging all these together to make it as simple as a marriage license would solve the problem.
But wait... there's MORE! :0)
The problem here is the gay agenda doesn't want merely the benefits, they want to change the landscape of public opinion, equating same sex unions with man/woman marriage. They seek to strike at the very heart of religion in doing so. Make note that every offer of civil unions are rejected by the advocate groups.
So, as usual, it is less about the issue getting the lip service, and more about altering perceptions permanently, changing the culture of American instead.
Creating "gay friendly" states would alter that state's culture by the sheer numbers of same sex couples immigrating. And once one or two fall, so will go the rest in time.
What then happens to the foundations of Christianity, in which is taught that man/woman bonds are the only ones sanctioned in the eyes of God?
Can we just assume that the Bible is a "living document" and subject to interpretation when convenient? We'll believe in this part of Bible doctrine, but obviously this other part is now incorrect since the government says marriage includes man/man or woman/woman?
Over time the very faith and belief in religion would be rocked since doctrine is so easily altered by man and his politics. And the new generations of children will be indoctrinated in schools to a new "norm" of relationships that is not compatible with Bible teachings.
So what will they believe in then? Government or religion?
Mata,..glad to have your insight, as always (it keeps me honest)!
I should have posted that I don't agree w/ gay marriage, but I do agree with the core reason why the Supreme Court refused to hear it.
Infortunately, the gay-rights people will see it as a victory.
For now, this is going to be a battle taken state-by-state.
Gets annoying that so many don't see the big picture, eh? Unfortunately, those most blind to the issue are usually those that have some power to influence.
The Supremes really had no recourse but to kick it out, since it is currently a state's right. Frankly, I wholeheartedly disagree with that status.
Dubya does get the big picture. Thus trying to make it a national standard via an Amendment. It's too bad it must come down to that, tho.
You're welcome for the opine, TrekMedic.... heaven knows, I have plenty of those to offer! LOL
Post a Comment
<< Home