~*~
For some, the Obama Hope & Change alters have been brought out again. Others see this as little more than the media machine flinging glitter at Obama's performance record.
Look!! Shiny objects!! What unemployment rates?
Does it really matter what Obama's opinion is on gay marriage? Does it really matter what my opinion is on Jell-O? That's what I thought.
When all of the fake outrage and moral judgement is set aside, it seems that all most gay marriage advocates seem to want is the same rights, privileges and protections that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy once they jump the broomstick.
Yet the sticking point for many appears the be the use of that word "marriage" - a religious based ceremony that gives special governmental preference.
Wait a minute ... I hadn't thought of it that way. Why in the hell does the government give preferential treatment to ANY citizen based on their marital status?
And then?
And then I stumbled on Lauren Taylor's No celebration for this lesbian in the Washington Post OpEd section and she said EXACTLY what I was thinking:
Here’s the thing: I don’t think we (the country, the society) should be giving rights, privileges and protections to anyone — gay, straight, bisexual or other — based on their sexual or romantic relationships. I think most of the rights and privileges gay men and lesbians are seeking by pursuing marriage rights should be granted to human beings because they are human beings, whether or not they find one person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.
A few examples:
- Everyone should be able to designate who they want to be able to visit them in the hospital. Everyone should be able to take leave to care for a sick loved one.
- Everyone should have access to health insurance. If you’re self-employed, unemployed or work for a place that doesn’t provide health insurance, you shouldn’t need to have a romantic partner who has a job that provides health benefits to get coverage.
- If a couple with a child splits, married or not, all parents should be eligible for visitation and responsible for child support.
- Everyone who pays into Social Security should be able to list who is financially dependent on them and who should get benefits when they die. Our current system shortchanges any dependent who isn’t married to a wage earner.
Can I get an AMEN??
See? These rights, privileges and protections are not available to all citizens, or even all adult citizens. They are ONLY available to heterosexual couples who are married.
Being that marriage is archaic and irrelevant, why does its practice give anyone preferential treatment?
This really isn't about the sanctity of marriage being "compromised" by same-sex couples.
This is about our government treating all humans (single people, people in long-term relationships that choose not to get married, same-sex couples, etc.) with consistency - allowing us all the same rights, privileges and protections.
Isn't it??
~*~
(4/365)
7 comments:
Hey, Dana! I mostly agree with you, but...
One nit to pick: President Obama's opinion matters precisely because he's the President of the United States, and as such, he represents/is supposed to represent all of the US's citizens to the world at large. By contrast, my opinion doesn't matter much because I'm a guy with a job that makes barely above minimum wage (comparatively speaking) and I don't happen to be "Leader of the Free World." If I were President of the US, my opinion would then matter.
Believe it or not, Obama's opinion matters the most to the religious right, because this only adds fuel to the fire of their accusation that he is waging a war against religion. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course; he just happens to disagree with them, as is his right by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
And no one cares about your opinion of Jell-O, because, c'mon, IT'S JELL-O! :)
The loathsome Tony Perkins was on the equally loathsome Chris Matthews show yesterday and kept saying the only reason for marriage was procreation. This was his argument against gay marriage. Gays can't have kids. (Not the old fashioned, morality police sanctioned way at least.)
So, my reaction to that was "Well then, why don't we strip all the financial, tax and societal benefits afforded married couples then?"
You can make the argument that there is a societal benefit (beyond having kids and increasing the population to make sure it's big enough to sustain a large army and create a large tax base) to the govt supporting and even encouraging marriage. But, if that's the case then there's no reason to deny gay marriage.
Jay
Tom, I respectfully disagree. His opinion is not an action item. His opinion doesn't change that Marriage is still a state issue, not a Federal one, and his actions have been nothing more than passive-aggressive regarding DOMA.
And Jell-O is the debil!
Jay, I'm with you, either we strip all the financial, tax and societal benefits afforded married couples, or we just let EVERYONE have them! Why should I have to be married to have someone receive my Social Security Death Benefit??
Why not go the European way...marriage is left in the church and the state (as in federal) government recognizes civil unions. All marriages in the eyes of the secular government are converted to unions.
It would aid in the divorce area too.
Here's a way to stop people from every getting married to begin with. Make divorce illegal.
The role of the church and state in marriage should be separated -- the church's role has to do with marriage as a sacrament, and the state's role is with marriage as a contract.
Therefore, if six people want to make a marriage contract, it should be okay if all parties sign on.
UzzyB, It hurts me to say this, but I suppose we could learn a few things from the Europeans *shudders*
Mike, I'd prefer we make MARRIAGE illegal!
eViL pOp TaRt, I still believe it would be easier to offer the protections marriage offers to all than it would be to get people to buy in to a "different" definition of marriage.
Post a Comment