Alas, a blog : California Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law; Schwarzenegger hints he'll veto
Alas, a blog
My Comments:
Look, the goal of America was to create a society where individual liberties are respected above government interference and that every citizen have equal treatment under the law. An adult citizen should be free to "marry" any other adult citizen or citizens in any configuration they choose. As long as the parties involved are in agreement, the government should have no say in limiting them, except with respect to incest, which can be viewed as a genetically unsound practice.
The fact is that there is a fundamental right to designate one's own spouse(s) and the government's only role should be to recognize that relationship. They need to either open it up to everyone equally or get out of the marriage business altogether.
I would have no objection if they wanted to decalre a "marriage" to be a religious practice, and get states out of it completely - no tax breaks, no favoritism under inheritance law, etc. However, marriage was not invented by Christians, so it would be inaccurate to say it is only a religious practice. There have been many societies where a marriage only signified an agreement to share the same living space, and "divorce" involved taking your belongings and going elsewhere.
As to hypocrisy, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be a Republican and have a functionaly super ego. If you have a conscience, care about being consistent, honest, or moral, you simply can't do it within that framework. Arnold's job as a Republican is to do what the party wants, and the party says gays can't marry. Therefore, Arnold will say whatever it takes to oppose gay marriage. If the legislature approves it, claim it should be decided by the courts. Conversely, if the courts approve it, call them activist and demand it be left to the popular vote. Ultimately, it should be up to neither the legislature, the courts, or anyone except the individuals involved.
The Constitution clearly states that all rights not specifically addressed wothin it are reserved to the people. Marriage rights were not addressed, so it is up to the people to decide how they will approach marriage. Personally, I think that those thousand-plus laws are that favor married couples are
unconstitutional. I don't agree that the nuclear family benefits society, nor that there is a compelling interest in the state supporting it.
Most families are extended, and have been throughout history. The idea of mom, dad and a couple fo kids only is a modern myth that rarely occurs in any stable form now. Most adults practice a form of serial monogamy, and most children have at least one primary caretaker who is not a biological mother or father. It would make far more sense to have each individual exist as a separate entity in the eyes of the government, and to have health care, child care and education provided equally across the board. We already have structures in place to deal with child custody - why should the legal relationship betweeen the child's custodians be an issue in determining what is best for the child?
To borrow a quote fromBill Maher "We're either drinking from the same water fountain in this country, or we're not." It is time to put an end to the special rights of heterosexuals.
My Comments:
Look, the goal of America was to create a society where individual liberties are respected above government interference and that every citizen have equal treatment under the law. An adult citizen should be free to "marry" any other adult citizen or citizens in any configuration they choose. As long as the parties involved are in agreement, the government should have no say in limiting them, except with respect to incest, which can be viewed as a genetically unsound practice.
The fact is that there is a fundamental right to designate one's own spouse(s) and the government's only role should be to recognize that relationship. They need to either open it up to everyone equally or get out of the marriage business altogether.
I would have no objection if they wanted to decalre a "marriage" to be a religious practice, and get states out of it completely - no tax breaks, no favoritism under inheritance law, etc. However, marriage was not invented by Christians, so it would be inaccurate to say it is only a religious practice. There have been many societies where a marriage only signified an agreement to share the same living space, and "divorce" involved taking your belongings and going elsewhere.
As to hypocrisy, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be a Republican and have a functionaly super ego. If you have a conscience, care about being consistent, honest, or moral, you simply can't do it within that framework. Arnold's job as a Republican is to do what the party wants, and the party says gays can't marry. Therefore, Arnold will say whatever it takes to oppose gay marriage. If the legislature approves it, claim it should be decided by the courts. Conversely, if the courts approve it, call them activist and demand it be left to the popular vote. Ultimately, it should be up to neither the legislature, the courts, or anyone except the individuals involved.
The Constitution clearly states that all rights not specifically addressed wothin it are reserved to the people. Marriage rights were not addressed, so it is up to the people to decide how they will approach marriage. Personally, I think that those thousand-plus laws are that favor married couples are
unconstitutional. I don't agree that the nuclear family benefits society, nor that there is a compelling interest in the state supporting it.
Most families are extended, and have been throughout history. The idea of mom, dad and a couple fo kids only is a modern myth that rarely occurs in any stable form now. Most adults practice a form of serial monogamy, and most children have at least one primary caretaker who is not a biological mother or father. It would make far more sense to have each individual exist as a separate entity in the eyes of the government, and to have health care, child care and education provided equally across the board. We already have structures in place to deal with child custody - why should the legal relationship betweeen the child's custodians be an issue in determining what is best for the child?
To borrow a quote fromBill Maher "We're either drinking from the same water fountain in this country, or we're not." It is time to put an end to the special rights of heterosexuals.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home