Someday, our grandkids are going to look back upon this era and wonder to themselves how we could even be discussing this kind of stuff as a matter of “politics” the same way some of us look back at our parents and grandparents and wonder how women, minorities and the disabled were treated different legally. Yet, here we are, 2011 and still debating the LGB(Q) community’s liberties and rights.
This week, the New York State Legislator is at the end of its session, over-session actually, and still cannot come to a Senate conscensus on if they should even bring a bill for equality onto the floor. The GOP caucus is playing the roll of “gay oppression party” by continously stalling a bill that appears to be ready for the floor and yet still, after all these months and passage in the Assembly and endorsed by the Govenor and several Mayors and a plethora of enormously recognizable locally grounded national and multi-national businesses.
it’s like saying i have a problem with gay breakfast, because you know, the bagel is different if you’re straight, divorced and barren (unable to have kids) and a self-acknoledge (and maybe not defined) agnostic but still committed to monogomouy and in love…
There are the usual answers to why it shouldn’t come to a vote…or why it should be shot down:
The “it’s against my personal beliefs” – which means your personal beliefs are greater than that of the up to 56% of NYers the the recent polls reported by the NYTimes, WSJ and NYPost who have show support for equality as comparred to the 34% who are staunchly against. You are an elected politician who is supposed to vote the “will of the people” Furthermore, how is it the Assembly member in your district was able to vote for in some cases and you are going against that by voting against in representation of the same voter?! How is your personal opinion outweighing the voices of the masses and you can still vote in good conscience?
… but it “infringes on others beliefs” – It’s the “my religion” or “family” or “conscious” believes such-and-such and what you belive infringes on that so I need to protect myself. It’s the same garbarge that “creationsists” use to push down evolution theory without acknoladging there are so many other conflicting “ideas” that are just as philosiphically credible. Heck, even Pope John Paul II realized there was a problem with this idea and stated that evoltion could coexist with Catholisim. Furthermore, if any religion where to follow their perceived religious law to the letter in the current translation into English there are WAY worse things they could do than engage in sodomy, which is where the typical “references” to “gay” are aligned in the text. I could sit here and point out all the flaws referencing just the Judeo-Christian text and modern society (and will if someone challenges me to)… and, yet, at issue isn’t that and we repress those things in the religious text and focus arbritrarily on this in worrying about repressing one’s “faith.” If these religions actually followed the idea of their faith, Christians would understand Jesus was accepting of others, especially those that were different from him, and embrace their difference and diversity in love. Now, out of convience, how many of those stories that outnumber the perceived anti-gay text are ignored in this arguement?
The “traditional marriage” arguement – Marriage is between “one man and one woman” except that traditional marriage wasn’t that at all. It was between one family and the other, in transferring the daughter and her “assets” from her family to the son of another family. It was a legal contract that the bonds of matrimony essentially moved the daughter from the father to the husband in slave like fashion. It was primarily and has historically predominanty been a matter of the “state” (and in the US, ironically enough, is a matter of the “State” not the Federal government, but that’s another conversation) and not some mystical idea. In Western Europe it was a foundation of law in the early middle ages and by the time the foundations of Common Law in England were established the vast majority of marriatal law was already “decided” outside of the forum of religion. In the US, where 1/3 of our system is derived from the judicial branch and 98% of the judical branch derives its roots and authorative background from the English system, those ancient texts of judicial precident.
But “traditional marriage is religion” – There are different variants of this in nearly all religions in nearly all major cultures that are typically referred to in this arguement and a large number that are not. If this is the “tradition” that is trying to be preserved, that’s disgusting. If it is about love and devotion, the modern version of “marriage” has always existed as a bond between two people almost irregard to the norms of “tradition” and two men or two women can just as easily demonstrate that as a man and woman.
The “religious sacrament” – ironically, it wasn’t until early in the middle ages several western societies began issuing marriage “lisences” to legalize the “contract” of marriage, which, at the time was the transfer of wealth from one family to another. The biggest purveyor of the current idea of marriage as a sacrament in the modern definition is the Roman Catholic Church that didn’t begin formalizing marriage with witnessed vows until the 16th Century and define the current sacrament of it until even later under a Vatacan Council. Other religions that attempt to interject their dogma suffer similar pangs historically when trying to invoke “tradition”
The “sanctity of the family” – in a country where divorse makes up nearly 50% of sanctioned marriages, the detriment of the family seems to be in the shear ease that exist in being able to destroy it already. It would seem spending the effort on creating and maintaining strong bonds for heterosexuals should be at the forefront of the arguement of the family, and yet, divorse in its current state, which is also not supported by the “Bible,” is “morally” accepted in Western society. What really makes a family then? lets then explore some other holes in this:
the “ability to birth” – what an aweful reason to justify marriage. How about those who are elderly and beyond their ability to procreate? Should they be denied marriage? How about those who are barren and unable to procreate? Should they be denied marriage? How about those who were married before and may or may not have previously had kids and decide the second time around due to death, divorse or whatever they are not ready, willing or able to procreate? Should they be denied marriage? How about those who can have children but for whatever reason have chosen not to? Should they bey denied marriage? LGB(Q) can procreate, and many have and will, but not through traditional means, and many won’t, but having children is not a pre-requisit for marriage, as all the above examples show.
the “welfare of the children” – the assinine concept that a child “needs” a mother and a father to grow up right is a tremendous discredit to the plethora of single parents. Millions do it every day, due to death, due to divorce and due to There is adequit proof the physological well being of a child is not dependant solely on parents but the overall environment the child is exposed to. Plenty of mom-and-dad households are abusive, or neglecting, or otherwise unable or unwilling to produce a balanced representation of a parent. Grandparents, foster parents, adoptions of all types over the years have proven that family is where the heart is and children take those cues of love an acceptence from everywhere around them and can grow up fantasitc just as easily as they can be screwed up by the “nuclear family” that’s so well touted to be “perfect”
the “separation of church and state” – if this is the case, then why are we even evoking religious ideas in the first place? drawing apart the BS concept of the constitution’s first ammendement doesn’t exactly say this phrase and just using the hundreds of years of drawing that conclusion, no religious idea should EVER preclude an concept from drawing from the the