Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.
Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.
Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement - all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.
Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.
The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary - it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?
Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.
There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.
Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.
There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.
Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
California Supremes Rule on Prop 8
The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.
The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.
The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.
The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.
The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.
Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.
The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.
The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.
The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.
The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.
Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Economic justice is still justice
Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.
Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.
Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.
If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.
It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.
Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.
Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.
If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.
It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Iowa court okays gays
How is this an attack on traditional marriage? I haven’t seen anyone protesting the traditional marriage rights of mixed gender couples, or seen any indication that this ruling would impact these rights.
What is really happening is that equal protection is being properly understood to protect the rights of minority populations against the tyranny of the majority - exactly what our Constitution is supposed to do. Eventually this understanding will be adopted by the SCOTUS, and same-gender couples will no longer be denied the rights afforded their mixed-gender cohorts.
What really galls is the attempt to frame this issue as an attack on “traditional marriage”. It is no such thing. What really is going on is a pre-emptive war on the rights of a persecuted minority, and the judicial system is rightly rejecting such arguments as unconstitutional.
Marriage as a sacred union is not at issue here - marriage as a legal union is what has been denied to same-gender couples. The Iowa court is correct to recognize this distinction, and has ruled appropriately. Their unanimous decision speaks clearly to the unsupportable assertions of homophobic activists.
The bottom line if you don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one.
What is really happening is that equal protection is being properly understood to protect the rights of minority populations against the tyranny of the majority - exactly what our Constitution is supposed to do. Eventually this understanding will be adopted by the SCOTUS, and same-gender couples will no longer be denied the rights afforded their mixed-gender cohorts.
What really galls is the attempt to frame this issue as an attack on “traditional marriage”. It is no such thing. What really is going on is a pre-emptive war on the rights of a persecuted minority, and the judicial system is rightly rejecting such arguments as unconstitutional.
Marriage as a sacred union is not at issue here - marriage as a legal union is what has been denied to same-gender couples. The Iowa court is correct to recognize this distinction, and has ruled appropriately. Their unanimous decision speaks clearly to the unsupportable assertions of homophobic activists.
The bottom line if you don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
