| Sanctity...My Ass Perhaps my title is a little insensitive to the gay community, but oh well. I feel I should be sure to announce that I have no personal stake in the matter of gay marriage. It is of no personal effect if a law to ban or a law to protect it is passed. I am not gay and I am not agaisnt it, so in either case, I will not be affected. With that said, I can move on. I have tried to consider the moral, legal and religious justifications for a ban and I have failed to find any of them worthy. I have heard many arguments. The most "powerful" of which, would be the so called "sanctity" of marriage. This is rationalized by claiming that marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman under the eyes of the Lord as well as the law. I can argue this point in a number of different ways. First, the sanctity of marriage was broken by King Henry VIII when he separated himself as well as his entire nation from the Catholic church for the sole reason of divorcing his wife. Divorce breaks this "sacred" union that is apparently so important that you are allowed to enter into it as long as you have an opposite set of genitals from your partner. Lvoe, commitment and honor do not factor into it. Divorce rates are at 50% and yet it is somehow worth protecting. This means around half of the heterosexuals of this nation that get married, don't believe its very sacred. Furthermore, it is completely legal to have an operation that changes your genitals to resemble the opposite sex. Thereby they are now legally the other sex and may marry someone of their original gender. Upon the religious and/or moral justifications pushed forth, I can not but scoff. In this country there are an innumerable amount of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hinduist, Shintoist, Agnostic, Atheist, Deist and Unitarian denominations that it would be reprehensible for the country to choose one version arbitrarily and force it upon the others. It can be argued that most follow the same gender precedents, but most also believe that we must pay our churches/synagogues/mosques a tithing of some sort. Is it therefore acceptible for the government to enforce this tithing upon us all, regardless of personal faith? The religious connotation is completely invalid. It does not matter if you are married in the eyes of the Lord, you must be legally granted a license by the state. Claiming that your God doesn't want gays to be married is defunct, because according to the letter of the law, your God's opinion doesn't matter. If a law is passed that bans marriage between two people of the same gender, it will be a travesty. It will be removed by the Supreme Court at some point in the future. It is completely unconstitutional because it says that "All men are created equal" not "All men are created equal as long as they like to have sex with women." How far in the future it will be for the Supreme Court to get by partisonship or religious bias is unknown. This law would almost be as bad as the Jim Crow laws. Those laws prevented blacks from full equality and this law would do the same to homosexuals. The most ludicrous justifications seem to be the most prevalent. I have heard on numerous occasions, supporters of the ban claim that marriage for homosexuals will lead to marriages between man and animals. This argument has been made on the ACTUAL FLOOR OF CONGRESS DURING A SESSION! Marriage is a union of two individuals based on consent. This is why we say "I do." Marriage in which a partner is coerced are void. An animal is incapable of communicating this consent. Ignoring all other reasons why this justification is irrational, that alone discounts it. If a ban is passed into law it will be a sad day for America. It will be yet another example of the intolerant and fearful citizens of this country displaying the hypocrisy of our so called "free nation." Seriously, - The Butch Lesbian |
 |
| 11/17/04 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Riot Rinse Repeat. Bringing the nifty since 2002 |
| TM |
 |
 |
 |