Posted by
conservativedude on Saturday, October 18, 2008 7:49:10 PM
Gay marriage, in all its manifestations is at the forefront this election season (again). Three states now have same-sex marriage, and as a result of one of these cases of judicial activism, Californians will vote on Proposition 8 which is meant to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman, in effect overturning those several judges' opinions.
There should be no need for a Federal Marriage Protection Act, but it often comes down to how hard the liberal agenda is pushing from the left. It definetely is a state's rights issue so the constituents of each state can decide what they want to do, so having the people vote is better than relying on the agendas of several judges. In California, I hope voters base their votes on what they truly believe and don't just say, "well, they currently have gay marriage; I don't want to take away any rights."
One problem that does arise when it is left to the states however, is what legal rights should transcend borders. If a gay couple from California had a mishap while visiting the Baltimore Inner Harbor and one requires hospitalization, will the spouse be denied hospital access to their loved one or their children? McCain's health care plan, genius in its design, might not be fully realized for some gay couples who might not be able to travel to other states for the best, competitive hospitals or doctors as their straight counterparts would be able to. This is another example of how giving gay couples equal legal rights would be good for the economy! Whatever the end result is, it must be ensured that all unions receive similar Federal legal benfits regardless of state, especially if certain states do not give state benefits to all types of unions.
So what exactly should be the law of the land? Some say no gay marriages whatsoever. Others want gay marriage to be the same as traditional marriage, while others want civil unions to carry all the same legal rights just in different packaging. It seems more people are supportive of gay marriage if it's just called something slightly different. If that's the case, why not push for that across the land (first)?
It does seem flimsy, asking for a separate type of gay marriage practically just in name only. Even if it is strong, legally protected and respected, gay marriage as a separate entity standing beside traditional marriage will be virtually identical. The main difference being of course, that each are mutually exclusive and all of the traditional aspects of marriage will be maintained as sacred for those who choose to partake in it. If gay marriage were to break down that wall so there's only one type of marriage it would do a disservice to straight couples who do honor and worship marriage in its age-old format.
Of course not every straight person is respectful of marriage, but since when do we let disrespectful people and the negative example they set dictate policy changes. Two wrongs don't make a right, in either sense of the word!
The concept of "identity" isn't only important to gay people, or other minorities. It's also important to straight couples and individuals. We are who we peceive ourselves to be. We're a sum of our parts and we define ourselves by where we come from, what we have, what we want and who we are with. While it might not be common to discuss perceived 'non-minorities' as having an identity, we must consider this in the gay marriage debate. If gay marriage were to infiltrate the current definition of marriage, the identities and roles of straight people would be clouded, which is why I support bestowing the same rights on any willing couple in a parallel type of marriage.
Besides, while different types of marriage have either flourished or been denied through history, the one constant has always been the (until recently) uncontested fact that it's between one man and one woman. I think it's great in our twenty-first century America, we would ensure equal legal rights to anyone, regardless of something as private and trivial as sexuality. I just don't want it to come at the price of taking away anyone else's rights, like the special, sacred qualities of traditional marriage.
Unfortunately, the issue of gay marriage snowballs into other arenas and in many cases, those subsequent effects floating on the periphery of the debate are the reasons opponents of gay marriage are angry.
One main sticking point is education. Parents don't want their children forcibly exposed to controversial stories, information, or in some cases actual gay weddings during school hours. I believe you should teach tolerance and respect for all, regardless of their age, weight, glasses, color, creed, nationality, sexuality, favorite style of music or favorite Star Trek captain. There's no need to teach any element of sex to young elementary schoolers. If you teach tolerance though--real tolerance that sticks, (I know, the notion of teaching morals in school is shocking!) then when sexuality does start to come up, students already have a built-in system of tolerance! Imagine that!
This also poses a threat to private organizations or churches, whose resistance to group all types of marriage together would be seen as discriminatory and face some sort of reprisal, whether a lawsuit from the ACLU on weekdays or vandalism by similar angry liberals on the weekends. There are so many types and combinations of people in the world, it seems a shame to force them all into one group, one type of marriage.
Do we do harm to snowflakes by grouping them all together, just because we can't see the differences without a microscope? Every snowflake has a unique crystalline pattern which is formed, falls to the ground, lands in a field or is smooshed into a snowball or the head of a snowman, and eventually melts back into the Earth.
"We are like snowflakes; there are no two alike," they say, as they watch the somber snowflakes descend and settle into dusty fields. They never again see the uniqueness of each flake in this fleeting world. They deny the beauty of being different, as divisive or unequal. If not for the faint pinpricks of snowflakes melting on children's noses, they wouldn't even notice the white things falling from the sky--instead only believing in the singular snow and knowing it's all the same.