The anti Gay marriage amendment to the California State Constitution seems to be on the way to passing. C'est la vie. California already has some of the strongest protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in the World. Domestic partnership is available to any two people, on any basis and carries the same benefits of marriage. It's pretty hard to sell gay marriage on the basis that it's an anti discrimination measure. Half of Californians, almost none of whom are gay, voted to allow gay marriage anyway. Whether gay marriage is specifically denied by the Constitution or not, I'm sure this issue will soon be revisited. Huge amounts of money were funneled into this effort by the Mormon church, Catholic church and James (don't pull me out of the closet) Dobson. I hope it was worth it to them. You'd think there would be starving children in Haiti that could have used the 80 million more.
I've never been to a Gay wedding. I'd probably go if invited. I don't see that happening any time soon. I have one friend that would like to get Gay married. He's in his early 50s now. He's HIV+. He won't drink domestic sparkling wine and has been known to spend his food stamp money on Stilton Cheese and black truffles. In the twenty plus years I've known him, he hasn't had a steady job or a steady boyfriend. You never know. It could happen.
I think religious intolerance toward Gays is partly their own fault. Gays are religious in surprising numbers and to a surprising extent. They go to and are active within the church. They may be out in every other aspect of their lives but not in church. I don't get it. They should get right in the church's face. It's not like the church can get along without them. Who would play the organ or sing in the choir? Who would arrange the flowers for the weekly alter piece and embroider the alter clothes? Who would come to the yearly church clean up day? They tithe generously. If they withheld services and contributions, the church would soon be begging to marry them, not putting up money to ban Gay marriage.
1 comment:
Red,
We've had this discussion before and I still believe it today. The government should not be in the marriage business in any shape or form. It should be left in the places of worship and out of government and that goes for all marriages. The state should not be issuing marriage license to anyone. Instead, everyone who wants to be recognized by the state as domestic partners should apply for a domestic partnership or whatever. This would solve the issue because the church would keep its hold on marriage as they define it and the state could stop worrying about what defines a marriage and get on with its life. The state could then define the partnership any way that it feels is right or put it to the people, but the word "marriage" would be off-limits. If certain churches want to allow gays to marry more power to them and others don't just dandy. This is the only solution to this issue because when you start mixing religion and the state you get funny out comes, like Shria Law.
Post a Comment