This is about what I'd expect of Obama, given how well his economic and foreign policy work has gone so far. Very hypocritical, and ungrateful to those
who helped him win the election.
Epsilon, Fidoohki, both sides have let the stupidities of their elected politicians slide far too much. Those of us who can call our own side to task when
they do wrong are that ultimate minority; smart, honest people.
I think I should give my position on the issue here, because it highlights the angle I approach this issue from. I am a conservative, in a more classical
sense than you typically hear now: I believe that the government should get its nose out of our bedrooms (and houses, and social lives, and a lot of things,
both socially and economically), and get back to defense, diplomacy, infrastructure, and the law. From this perspective, both sides are wrong.
The right believes that marriage is a religious act. Because of this, they feel that they can force the state to not allow marriage to those who their
religion (Protestant Christianity, for the most part) will not marry.
The left sees marriage as a function of the government. From there, they assume that it is unfair and unlawful, unconstitutional even, to not allow same-sex
marriage. The leadership of the gay community has, in the past, taken an... explicit stance toward raising awareness and acceptance of homosexuality, and
there is an element of spite (forcing the religious right to recognize us as being the same as they are) to this proposal.
My problem with this is that there are two aspects of marriage. First, there is the official aspect, where couples register with the government, and get
various rights, like visitation rights in hospitals, or the ability to file taxes jointly. Then, there is the social aspect- the ability to say that you are
married, have the ceremony, wear wedding bands, and have others treat you as a married couple. The left is absolutely right about the first part: it is not
right for any couple, regardless of their sexuality, to be denied rights that are given to other couples. This should change. The right, though, is
absolutely right that marriage is an aspect of religion, as churches of all faiths have been conducting weddings for millennia. Why, I ask, do they have to
share the same name?
I propose that the legal aspect of 'marriage' as it stands today be renamed. We can even steal the term "civil union" for that: it's as
good as any. Any couple- gay, straight, lesbian- can get a civil union, and all civil unions have the same rights under the law. This is fair and just.
'Marriage' will be a purely religious event, and any couple that can find a church that will marry them can get married. Unlike the religious right,
this does not discriminate against non-Christian faiths, nor does it deprive them of the rights the left is trying to take from them. Everybody gets
something, no one will be happy, but they can all settle down and learn to live with it- the very definition of a compromise.
That is what an honest politician, on any side of the fence, should be promoting.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
who helped him win the election.
Epsilon, Fidoohki, both sides have let the stupidities of their elected politicians slide far too much. Those of us who can call our own side to task when
they do wrong are that ultimate minority; smart, honest people.
I think I should give my position on the issue here, because it highlights the angle I approach this issue from. I am a conservative, in a more classical
sense than you typically hear now: I believe that the government should get its nose out of our bedrooms (and houses, and social lives, and a lot of things,
both socially and economically), and get back to defense, diplomacy, infrastructure, and the law. From this perspective, both sides are wrong.
The right believes that marriage is a religious act. Because of this, they feel that they can force the state to not allow marriage to those who their
religion (Protestant Christianity, for the most part) will not marry.
The left sees marriage as a function of the government. From there, they assume that it is unfair and unlawful, unconstitutional even, to not allow same-sex
marriage. The leadership of the gay community has, in the past, taken an... explicit stance toward raising awareness and acceptance of homosexuality, and
there is an element of spite (forcing the religious right to recognize us as being the same as they are) to this proposal.
My problem with this is that there are two aspects of marriage. First, there is the official aspect, where couples register with the government, and get
various rights, like visitation rights in hospitals, or the ability to file taxes jointly. Then, there is the social aspect- the ability to say that you are
married, have the ceremony, wear wedding bands, and have others treat you as a married couple. The left is absolutely right about the first part: it is not
right for any couple, regardless of their sexuality, to be denied rights that are given to other couples. This should change. The right, though, is
absolutely right that marriage is an aspect of religion, as churches of all faiths have been conducting weddings for millennia. Why, I ask, do they have to
share the same name?
I propose that the legal aspect of 'marriage' as it stands today be renamed. We can even steal the term "civil union" for that: it's as
good as any. Any couple- gay, straight, lesbian- can get a civil union, and all civil unions have the same rights under the law. This is fair and just.
'Marriage' will be a purely religious event, and any couple that can find a church that will marry them can get married. Unlike the religious right,
this does not discriminate against non-Christian faiths, nor does it deprive them of the rights the left is trying to take from them. Everybody gets
something, no one will be happy, but they can all settle down and learn to live with it- the very definition of a compromise.
That is what an honest politician, on any side of the fence, should be promoting.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.