Overall, I have little problem with this new law. Since this country has an all volunteer military, I find it a stretch that a gay guy would enlist merely to watch other guys shower.
When I was a teen, I asked my great-uncle Lester, a WWII vet, what he thought of gays serving in the military. Never one to mince words, Lester said "As long as they don't try to make a move on me, what do I care?" Without giving the issue a whole lot of thought, that became my thought process, shallow as it was.
But what struck me was a line of questioning at the White House press conference after the President signed the new law. ABC TV's Jake Tapper's question included the following inquiry:
...is it intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?
The short answer? Yes.
Marriage is a religious exercise. Remember that whole first amendment thing where it indicates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" When our soldiers put their lives on the line to uphold our freedoms, essentially the tenants outlined in our Constitution, they are doing so voluntarily.
The vast majority of religions cite the Bible as their standard on how to live a Godly life. As such, marriage is biblically defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now if there is some rogue religion out there which chooses to acknowledge same sex marriage, so be it. I will exercise my freedom not to worship there.
I guess the question I have (which has yet to be answered to my satisfaction) is why aren't Civil Unions sufficient for the needs of gay couples? This is a contract with the state which allows all couples to essentially have the same rights and privileges as those who are married. Seems to me the ideal setup for two people who love each other yet don't want to declare their covenant under any religious purview.
Back to my query. Please explain why "marriage" is so vital when Civil Unions would appear to supply the majority of relationship needs.
I have my own rationale but I thought I would open the floor to others.
-------------------------------------------------
2 comments:
Back to my query. Please explain why "marriage" is so vital when Civil Unions would appear to supply the majority of relationship needs.
Because gays want the imprimatur of approval for their relationships. If it were up to me, I'd take the State out of the marriage business altogether. I'd be more than happy, for the purposes of the State, to call my marriage a "civil union." What I don't want is to have the Catholic Church (in my case) or any other denomination to be told they must provide that imprimatur of approval.
Night Writer has written on this topic and he once proffered the idea of reserving the term "matrimony" for marriage as we currently understand the term.
Because gays want the imprimatur of approval for their relationships.
THAAAAAANK You!!! That is my thought exactly.
If it were up to me, I'd take the State out of the marriage business altogether.,
Agreed. While I was thoroughly satisfied in 2004 when 11 states voted to amend their constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman, I also looked at it as a dangerous precedent, That is government inserting itself in an area where, per the first amendment, it has no authority to do so.
Of course, this wouldn't be as salient an issue had gay marriage not been allowed in Massachusetts via judicial fiat.
Post a Comment