RSS
Home
Gay Marriage | next stop New York
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Will New York be next?
Related Articles
During my diatribe to a reader last week regarding gay marriage, I argued that gay rights are civil rights. There are a lot of people who agree with me. There are a lot of people who don’t. There are those who think the gay community is making much ado about nothing. Obviously those individuals are not gay.
It’s sick. It’s wrong. Homosexuals are not a legitimate minority group and, therefore, cannot expect equal legal protection or access to social services and support. It’s expensive.
Bla, bla, bla. Given that I am gay, no amount of debate is likely to convince me that I deserve less than the next citizen. I am adamently opposed to discrimination. All of the reasons I have heard and read are little more than thinly veiled disgust, disdain, fear and loathing.
My best friend sent me an article from yesterday's NY Times op-ed section that inspired hope. Tom Suozzi ran against Elliot Spitzer for governor of NY in the Democratic primary. During the primary he supported civil unions, but opposed gay marriage. He wrote an op-ed admitting he was wrong, clearly articulating why he changed his mind.
Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.Click here to read the entire article.
I found an article by gentleman claiming to offer an “intellectual conservative dissection” of the gay marriage issue. I eagerly read, hoping someone would offer logic in lieu of moral condemnation. Sadly, is dissection was far from acute.
When looking at the gay marriage issue, one has to ponder... what is this really all about? Gays can already have any relationship they wish, what they're fighting for here is state-recognized status. Why? They can call themselves "married" until they're blue in the face, why do they need to the state to recognize their union? Because with state-recognition comes state benefits. And here we find the crux of the issue for the intellectual conservative - the reason the intellectual conservative wants gay marriage to be decided state-by-state isn't because he has some vehement hatred for gays, but because he believes that a state's citizens should have the autonomy to decide what they will and will not subsidize.
The crux of the issue for the intellectual conservative is state benefit and the voter’s autonomy to decide what they will and will not subsidize? What? The intellectual liberal would like to know why gay Americans are expected to subsidize social benefits denied them? This gentleman’s analysis completely overlooks the tax revenue paid by gay Americans. If the majority has a right to deny marriage to a minority group to avoid incurring additional social expense, then I would argue that I am due a major tax refund. I’ve been paying taxes for 25 years. If you are single with no kids, you pay more than your married counterparts due to the benefits. Some portion of MY taxes have been utilized to provide those marriage benefits, as well as schools, welfare programs, veteran benefits and other social services that I do not require as a single lesbian with no children. Some of the money has gone into Medicare and Social Security, though both programs are likely to bankrupt long before I qualify. Like every American, every dollar I make is taxed several times. What do I get for it?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Gay Marriage Is Bad for Small Business | ||||
| ||||
The ‘intellectual conservative’ goes on to say:
Personally, I think a "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's what the word means; that's what it has always meant. Not a man and a man. Not a woman and a woman. Not three men and two women. Not a man an ape and an elephant. Just one man and one woman. That's what the word means, and it would seem the majority of this country agrees with me (for a change...).
At this point the argument seems to be morphing from a Michael Steele approach to a Pat Robertson approach. I think his attempt at clear, conservative thinking fell apart in this paragraph.
People are trying to define marriage as between a man and a woman TODAY, but that is not how it has been defined throughout history. That is NOT what the word MEANS. The definition changes as society changes. Rights pertaining to marriage were expanded to allow interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The institution of marriage pre-dates our modern social mores. If you go back in history for a moment, or delve into the bible, the definition of ‘marriage’ becomes very interesting.
I would support gay marriage and gays in the military regardless of my sexual orientation. I support equal civil rights for ALL members of society. I am admittedly, proudly and undeniably a liberal when it comes to social issues. It is important to pursue equal rights in every nation where pursuit is a possibility. There are many countries where being gay is a danger or a death sentence. If the gay community does not unite to push for rights where it is possible, we fail ourselves and we fail those who face death for existing.
If you like what you see, please share, subscribe, bookmark/RSS
More About:
Issues
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
Fundamentalists and right wing pundits in Maine demonstrated their finesse at utilizing morality to win the public hate debate surrounding gay rights. …
On Tuesday voters rejected a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed in Maine. The repeal comes just six months after the measure …
