Observations on Gay Marriage, Part I.

There are two main questions at play here:

1. Should marriage licensing be neutered?
2. How should this be decided - by courts or legislative/popular vote?

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/neutering_marriag e_devalues_and_discourages_marriage.thtml

Most folks I know - and that means most religious folks - are fine with gay people making a permanent, legally-recognized commitment to one person, being able to designate that person as an heir, to give them health care power of attorney, to co-own property with them, to insure them (or be insured by them), etc.

All of this falls under the banner of "equal rights" and tolerance.

Where people begin to chafe is when gays want not only legal rights but moral sanction. In other words, "We not only want the same legal rights you have, we want to control the way you think. We want it to be illegal for you to believe what you believe. We want it to be a hate crime to preach against homosexuality. We want any church that does to lose its tax-exempt status. We want to prevent you from teaching your children the moral views you have as they relate to the kind of sex we have. (Or, at the very least, to prevent you from prohibiting OUR teaching YOUR children what WE want them to think about the kind of sex we have.)"

This is why you get so little pushback from conservatives on "civil unions," and why, for so many homosexual activists, "civil unions" are not enough.

The Christian Right has framed this as "defense of marriage." Critical thinkers should ask; Defending it from what and why does it need defending?

Ultimately, NOBODY has ever provided a single argument that supports the notion that one couple's gay marriage in any way affects any other couple's "traditional" marriage.

The TRUTH is that proponents of Proposition 8 and similar initiatives are taking this position SOLELY based on their interpretation of scripture. However, they know the pitfalls of a campaign based upon "the bible tells me so." Thus, we end up with all of this tortured logic and a campaign based on unwarranted fear. It is the same selective observation that leads people to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old rather than 4.5 billion and that Darwin represents a flawed theory. This is exacerbated by a messianic zeal to impose these beliefs on others.

Prop 8 SHOULD be overturned. It is the job of the judiciary to protect minorities from the tyranny of a majority AND the court should respect the establishment clause.

The Boiled Frog
http://www.tips-q.com/content/talking-points-regarding-gay- rights

Ken,

Thanks for your comment, and I enjoyed reading your blog entries on the issue, both the one you had in your comment, and also the one titled "More on the Definition of Marriage". In my planned second part to this, I will touch on the idea of children being central to marriage, and I'll have a different thought related to that.

Laura,

Thank you also for your comments. I agree with you that most people who are of the conservative persuasion have no problem with civil-unions. You also make some cogent points when you bring up church issues related to homosexuality, and I plan to touch on those in future blog entries.

David,

I don't think anyone is saying that one couple's gay marriage will effect their personal marriage on an individual level. The concern is for the society as a whole and what the ramifications are for religious liberty. I plan to discuss that further in my next blog entry.

Thank you all for reading and for the comments.