There has been vigorous debate since Mr. Obama said he supported marriage rights for non-hetersexuals. Like the President's previous position, I have thought that Civil Unions achieved the same purpose, but then we got married by a Justice of the Peace (who happened to believe in ghosts) in the basement of Chicago City Hall. Other than a marriage certificate being issued for that, we could be existing in a civil union.
Anyway, a year or so ago, I decided if gay/lesbians wanted to be married, what difference does it make to me and it generally makes these people happy. So let it happen.
The primary two arguments presented on the News Hour last night against this were: (i) this will encourage young people to become gay or lesbian and (ii) it is a threat to the institution of marriage.
I could not believe my ears that this drivel was coming out of the mouth of somebody representing a church. Young people do not choose to be hetersexual or gay/lesbian. It just happens. So it must be genetically based. How does denying GLBT's the right to marry have any effect on the propensity of any individual to be GLBT? How does allowing them to do so harm the institution of marriage? It seems to me to enhance it since it is so important to these individuals that they want it more than almost anything else in social policy. That is showing respect for the institution of marriage.
And just to repeat, our Declaration of Independence does say: "All men are created equal". When they wrote that they met men and women without regard to sexual preference. If they did not mean that, they would have put in some exceptions, which they did not except for slave's. And that is certainly seen universally as a sorry exception from a pious point of view. How one can believe that denying slave's rights is wrong and then deny a GLBT from marrying is beyond me.
Let's discuss some real issues such as why doesn't the GOP want to raise revenues to repay the debt incurred to fight the war on terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment