WOW
I think Michael and I are the only people that we know that would vote "YES" to Proposition 2. To paraphrase "The Godfather,".....
"It's not personal." It's not. I know and care about people who would be adversely affected by this. But it's what I believe, and how I was raised. As for the government being "less in control,"....I think this is the kind of thing that maybe the government should have their hand in.
*shrug*
The cheese stands alone.
Let the name calling begin.
posted by Sassy at 3:11 PM
7 Comments:
I take it Proposition Two has something to do with Gay Marriage? I guess from an early age I always saw life in opposites.When I thought of one situation that was right or wrong, I imagined the opposite. If you're against abortion, what's the opposite? Women dying from illegal abortions. (Not fewer abortions as some would lead you to believe.) So before we knew about homosexuals and choices, a friend in high school said she would just die if one of her sons was a fag. And I asked her if she would rather her son be like my father... a loathsome asshole of a man (and I use that term loosely) who screwed every woman in our small town, helped his girlfriends get illegal abortions, abandoned his children, beat his wife, never spoke to his parents, played mean, cruel jokes on his slightly autistic (before we knew the term or diagnosis) brother, and who never turned around to acknowledge or pay child support for his 4 wonderful daughters but was clearly heterosexual or a wonderful, kind, bright, happy, well-adjusted man who was capable of loving another human being and giving back to the world but was definitely homosexual? I don't know... but I think I'd take the gay son any day. And I hope that he could marry his partner so they could enjoy all the benefits that heterosexuals have when it comes to insurance, medical & financial decisions, and protection under the law. Just a thought.
P.S. I would never call you a name. We're all entitled to our opinion.
Okay...I knew I'd get a couple of these.
Maribou Sue - It's not being judgmental so much as just wanting to keep marriage sacred and between a man and a woman, as God intended it. I think some things should be kept sacred.
TechDeity - I know that what I'm doing is just as much a sin as homosexuality, and we intend to rectify that. To say I don't have a "dog in this hunt" is unfair, because, as I said, people I care about would be adversely affected, and, just because I don't live in Texas anymore does not take away my right to care what goes on in my home state.
RedHeadEditor - It's a tough situation and I'm not trying to say it isn't, nor am I trying to be glib about the whole thing. There are certain issues I still haven't made up my mind on...for example, I'm pro-life but I'm not sure I want abortion to be illegal. There is no black or white in these situations usually, it's usually quite gray.
********
Thank you all for your comments, I knew I'd get some. Just remember...on the diatribes voting against this proposition on other blogs, I did not leave comments trying to convince a blogger that he or she was wrong, nor did I try to force my own point of view on them. Thanks the most to R.H.E for stating the obvious yet never remembered point of "we are all entitled to our own opinion."
What about the fact that this amendment could declare MY marriage null and void? I am a woman married to a man, but I was not married in TX. Sacred or not, this amendment will also give the government the freedom to declare any marriage acquired out of state that it chooses, to not exist.
This law does not keep marriage sacred at all, in my opinion. It only gives the government the power to decalre, at it's whim, which marriages to recognize.
The fact that this amendment also makes gay marriage illegal is only a small piece of the puzzle. Is it worth it to pass a law that has so many negative reprecussions JUST because of views on homosexual marriage?
Just my two cents... :-)
My own feeling is that the government shouldn't have a say in ANY marriage, gay or straight or what-have-you. This means no government approval or disapproval. You do what you want, I'll do what I want, and NONE of it is the government's business, one way or the other.
By the way, to Maribou Sue: the first amendment does not guarantee the right of the people to be free of any restraints unless they are wholly unrecognizable as having originated in a major religion. It only states, very clearly, that the government shall not recognize any religion as a state religion. The "separation of church and state" was intended to limit government, not religious expression. ALL of the amendments have as their first function the limiting of government's power, not that of the people.
Freckles, I'm normally on the same side of the political fence as you, but I have to differ here.
Being that I'm way up here in Illinoise, I had to read up on the issue, since it's featured so prominently in so many of the blogs I frequent. I found a really good, concise editorial here:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/10/17/20051017waceditorial17.html
It sounds like this is a pre-emptive strike against the Texas Supreme Court. This seems unnecessary. Let the law be the law until it is struck down -- then amend the constitution if it is the will of the people. The legislative branch has no business taking action simply to wag its finger in the judicial branch's face and saying "Don't go there."
The other big issue I have with Prop 2 is its vaporization of any type of union. I have np problem with protecting the institution of marriage, but I think room must be left for rights-granting civil unions. And most of the American public agrees.
In the 2004 elections, a pattern emerged: most Americans seem to oppose gay marriage, but favor civil unions, whic leads me to my next point: this is not simply a Christianity issue. To chalk it up to that alone does debate on the topic a HUGE disservice. You simply cannot say that to oppose gay marriage is to oppose homosexuality.
Maribou Sue:
Your point taken. However...
While you may find the thought behind a law to be distasteful, it doesn't matter legally. All that matters is the effect, not the cause. While some Christians may view the passage of some laws as "triumph", all that matters constitutionally is the actual effect that the law will have on the constitution.
My apologies to FH for hijacking her comments space for this discussion, and to Maribou Sue for my didactism. Just want to make a clear point, is all.
Post a Comment
<< Home