A photo from the first gay marriage in Beverly Hills
It isn’t a surprise to most of us that most Americans are iffy on gay marriage. Some hold religious observances in which their holy texts vilify homosexuals, some are traditionalist and would like marriage to continue to be between a man and a woman; but how much do we all really understand about gay marriage?
There is an imperative need for understanding about a topic as sensitive (religiously and legally) as this one. First, we must understand that there are two kinds of marriages: religious and civil. Religious marriages are performed by places of worship and civil marriages can be performed by the state. Marriage had long been more similar to business deals, rather than love. But now, we recognize that marriage is an agreement between two people who love each other.
We must now take a look at why the ability to marry is so important. Due to the inability to marry, there are 1,400 rights that are denied to homosexuals according to the GAO. These include things like: Social Security Pension, Survival benefits, continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits, Making, revoking, or objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts, etc. So, as a result of not having the right to marry, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Transgender) couples are not guaranteed these rights and more.
Along with the issue of gay marriage, there are also many other, non-marriage related tribulations that LGBT people must go through. For example, nineteen states (including Missouri) do not have anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people. This means that in Missouri, and 18 other states, an employer can refuse to hire you based on your sexual orientation. Ten other states only have state employment anti-discrimination laws.
Another atrocity is that up until only about a month ago federal law did not include sexual orientation as a hate crime. This new law, according to Senator Leahy, also improves previous laws to make it easier for federal authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, now including hate crimes based on sexual orientation.
The truth is, is that there are no valid reasons to not allow same sex marriage. One common argument is that same sex marriage would destroy families. This ploy was also common in the battle for interracial marriages. Another common argument is that a child needs a mother and a father. If this were true, then the next logical step would be to ban single-parent households and criminalize divorce. In fact, one of the members of the successful Prop 8 battle in California (which re-criminalized same sex marriage) has now co-authored the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act which does, in fact, criminalize divorce. Some hot posts on their website: Traditional Godless Socialism, “Jesus still loves you if you get divorced – just not as much as before”, and teaching your child that, “Sure, divorces happen – but they don’t need to know that”. The founder of this new proposition claims that this is the next logical extension of Prop 8.
Comments
You realize that the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act is not actually sponsored by the people who sponsored Prop 8 but rather a No on 8 organizer ? The idea behind it is that is the Christian Right was really interested in protecting marriage, they'd have to support this ballot measure or expose themselves as hypocrites
You realize that the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act is not actually sponsored by the people who sponsored Prop 8 but rather a No on 8 organizer ? The idea behind it is that is the Christian Right was really interested in protecting marriage, they'd have to support this ballot measure or expose themselves as hypocrites
“Another atrocity is that up until only about a month ago federal law did not include sexual orientation as a hate crime.”
Did you perhaps mean violence based on sexual orientation?
@No one: Yeah. Violence done to someone because of their sexual orientation.
@Nic: Yeah. I suppose I could have been clearer, but I did know that John Marcotte has been known for "pranks". Even though he claims this is not a prank...
We should support marriage between one man & one woman and that alone. No to gay marriage & no to polygamous marriage. No to one man and one man or one woman and one woman or one man and two women, etc. We should not redefine marriage to allow gay marriage or polygamous marriage.
There are many gays that want marriage to be redefined to allow gay marriage and there are an estimated 30,000-100,000 polygamists in America who also want marriage to be redefined to allow polygamous marriage. We must not allow marriage to be redefined to allow either of them.
Gay & straight liberals say that discrimnination is discrimination, so if they support redefining marriage to allow gay marriage, but not redefining it to allow polygamous marriage, then they are bigots. Worse than that, they are hypocrites.
Some say that those who support civil unions (but not gay marriage) are bigots. They must also call Obama a bigot, too, since he doesn't support gay marriage but does support civil unions.
Ray, I'll just point you to the Independent Gay Forum and look at the article entitled: "Polygamy Illogic Strikes Again". If you have trouble finding it, e-mail me at the address in my bio and I'll send you a link.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!