teary-eyed re: marriage (evolving into a rant)

[mckitterick]

So I was watching CNN yesterday, my favorite purveyor of bad news (isn't that pretty much the news's job? Should be called the BAD news), and saw that Portland, Oregon, has gotten into the same-sex marriage movement. Before that, I was pretty much, you know, "Go for it!" but not personally moved as much as some. Well, that's not true: That beautiful poster of the San Fran courthouse steps carpeted with rose petals celebrating love, that was moving.

Anyhow, we have friends in Oregon, a lesbian couple (if you can call two women who swoon over male movie-stars "lesbians," heh) who've been together for decades and have raised a few children. They were married in a church a long time ago, but now they could potentially make it legal.

Put tears in my eyes. Now I watch the courthouse footage to see if they plan to get legally married. Seems they're considering it.

Those against gay marriage seem to have the biggest problem with the word, "marriage" being applied to a gay couple's union. My feeling was always that "marriage" should be the decision of a church, and what the government gives us is something else. However, that's not the case; I can't think of any state where a "civil union" provides the same legal rights to a couple as a "marriage."

Why is the gov't involved in marriage at all? The more the debate about this goes on, the more that I predict people will realize that we've had it all wrong all along. Let any (legally consenting) couple get hitched, but let their churches decide who can be "married in the eyes of god."

Which brings us to the arguments against. Pat Robertson, that pillar of... um, freakishness, argues that if we allow gays and lesbians to marry, what's next? Dogs and people, group marriages, parent-child marriages? Come on. To legally consent, you must be 1) of age, 2) mentally competent, and 3) sentient or enough so that you can legally consent. So what if people choose to be in a group marriage? Does that harm anyone? In fact, seems that children growing up in such circumstances turn out really well, having been cared for much better than a working couple could provide.

And now that I'm on a roll, how about that whole "the Bible says not to" idea? Where does it say gays and lesbians shan't marry? Leviticus? The same book that promotes wife-beating and stoning people to death as legal? Huh. Did Jesus ever say words against gay folks? If not, why are Christians (that is, people who follow the word of Jesus, not the Old Testament guys's messages that He came here to revise) against loving unions?

I look at our Oregon friends and think that people who say they shouldn't be allowed to marry but that it's okay for a pair of 18-year-old kids (who're damned likely to divorce in no time at all) just don't get it.

Well, now that my heartbeat is up, I'm heading home. G'night!

Chris

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/louie_d_/]

The bottom line with this issue is that this is an election year. It's a smoke screen to polarize the electorate like abortion or gun control or flag burning. It's a political strategy to prevent less informed voters from casting their votes based upon the candidates qualifications or track record on things that actually effect the lives of all citizens like the Economy, Foreign Policy, the Budget Deficit.

That is not to say that this isn't important. All of the recent assaults on personal freedoms causes me great concern. When I hear the words "Department of Homeland Security", I get chills down my spine. How much of a step is it from 'Homeland' to 'Fatherland'? Did you know that KGB (Kommutyet Gosudarsfa(?) Bezopasnosty) translated from Russian stands for Committee for Public Safety? (I'm very rusty with my Russian spelling)

Last election I voted for Ralph Nader, not because I thought he was the best candidate, but because there was no way Bush was not going to win Kansas. I figured I might help him get some matching funds for this campaign and encourage third party candidates. This year, I will vote for the Democratic presidential candidate regardless of his stand on issues, but just to do everything I can to keep President Cheney Shrub Bush, I mean, The Chimp, from getting re-elected.

Excuse the rant and for going a little off-topic.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

Bush is definitely the worst doublespeak president I can remember. Department of Homeland Security should just be shortened to Ministry of Love.