I sit here this morning, watching Sean Penn in Milk. What an amazing story. Thirty plus years ago he fought for gay rights, for gay equality. A fight that continues still today.
During the Presidential election the topic of same sex marriage was debated by the VP candidates. A topic they both agreed on. They both opposed it.
Where did our tolerance go? Not just for gay and lesbians, but for everyone? We as a people are losing our tolerance. We’ve adapted a “My way or the highway” mentality, passing judgment on people who are different than we are.
Prop 8 was just overturned, declared unconstitutional. Government is still trying to deny people civil rights, basic civil rights.
My question during the Presidential debate was “Why not?”
Why are people in this day and age being told, by our government that their relationship will not be recognized? Again I have to ask “Why not?”
Who will actually be hurt by allowing same sex marriages? Allowing them won’t take away anything from traditional man/woman marriages. There will be no rights lost, no ‘benefits’ lost. There will be no harm done. It will have no adverse effect on existing or future marriages of heterosexual couples.
So, again, I ask, Why Not. What is the reason for this non-support? On what is that aversion based? What are the reasons why they chose to not recognize these unions between two people?
Is it a religious objection? Fine, you’re allowed your own personal beliefs and objections, but when it infringes on other people’s rights, (and you can dictate nationwide policy and law) then that’s playing God. There is that whole Separation of Church and State. Government can not dictate religious beliefs, so why should religion be allowed to dictate policies and law?
“They will be allowed the same civil liberties as heterosexual couples.” Well, not really. Will they be covered on each other’s health insurance? Will they be allowed to make life or death decisions in the event the other is incapable? Will their commitment be recognized in the same way a heterosexual marriage will be?
If their civil liberties will not be interfered with by the government, (as the candidates claim), then why are they (same sex couples) not being allowed to marry? If they will be given the same treatment, then technically the only thing the government is withholding is the marriage certificate.
Why is that the threshold the government chooses not to cross? Why walk right up to that line and stop just short of the goal? Again, I ask Why Not? Who loses by allowing same sex marriages?
Bumper asked me during our conversation on this topic, what is the one thing heterosexual couples can do that same sex couples can not? Reproduce. But reproduction can not be the defining factor in who is allowed to marry and who isn’t. After all there are heterosexual couples who can not reproduce. If reproduction is the defining factor, does that mean couples have to produce an heir in order to marry? That’s sort of putting the horse before the cart. And if reproduction is the defining factor then couples who are unable to have children, who suffer with infertility will not be allowed to marry and therefore their rights are now being revoked due to a medical issue. Yes, that is dramatic and far reaching but it’s a logical progression of thought carried out to the dramatic degree.
Again, it comes down to Why Not? What is the reason the government feels it is their right to step in and interfere in people’s pursuit of happiness? If they have already made that level of commitment to each other, why keep the marriage certificate (and the rights afforded married couples) from them? If it’s truly just a piece of paper, then give it to them already. But we all know, it’s not just a piece of paper.
Why not? Who gets hurt by allowing same sex marriages? There is no legal basis, just personal, and maybe even religious objections. Unless of course I’m missing something entirely (which is possible).
Granted. we’ve made progress since Harvey Milk was elected to office in the 70’s. But there is still progress to be made.
A lot of progress.
The intolerance isn’t limited to gays and lesbians. We as a people have grown intolerable of anyone who differs from us. I experienced this first hand on the interwebs just last week. I was just shy of being told to Hush because I dared to ask a question and hold a belief that differed from someone else. She wanted my voice silenced because she could not tolerate a difference of opinion. She claimed she wanted Elizabeth Hasselbeck to “hush” because she sounded like an idiot. So, Elizabeth should be silenced because of a difference in intelligence levels? So, now, only ‘smart’ people are allowed to have their opinion heard?
Intolerable.
Maybe I want to live in Eutopia, where ‘to each his own’ is the law of the land. Live and let live. Where men are created equal. I just don’t know where’s the harm in letting people live their own life how they want to live their own life? Who am I, who are you, who’s the government to step in and tell people how to live, who to love, what to be?
Filed under: Hot Topics | Tagged: civil rights, equality, gays and lesbians, tolerance |
Welcome to My Life The Lost Years 
I have a gay son and therefore understand the frustration of marriage. In addition, I agree we are becoming a less tolerant country but I think we are becoming less tolerant due to the belief that we should live however we want and with no regard to our fellow man and laws. The government you keep referring to is OUR GOVERNMENT. WE THE PEOPLE. We vote for our politicians and those politicians create laws according to OUR DEMANDS. WE ARE OUR GOVERNMENT! You seem to feel THE GOVERNMENT is it’s own entity and if so then we are no longer a REPUBLIC we then become something else. In addition, you ask ‘who’s the government to step in and tell people how to live, who to love and what to be?’ In California the PEOPLE voted for Proposition 8, once again, I did not agree with Proposition 8 and I wanted it to be overturned legally but my point it has to be done within our system. Now, it seems to me THE PEOPLE want the GOVERNMENT to step in! The WANT IT TO STEP IN with unemployment, welfare, health care, education, buyouts for large companies so millions of peoples do not lose their jobs (auto industry has been bailed out so many times I have lost count) and what about the mortgage bailout for Americans. May I ask, are you OKAY with THE GOVERNMENT stepping in then??? Or do you want THE GOVERNMENT to stay out completely, or somewhere in between?
The bottom line, we need to work within our system to change things. Tolerance needs to be re established and then the voters will vote for gay marriage. We need to go back to our roots of tolerance and working within our laws and not around the laws.
I love what you wrote and I believe everyone has the right to speak their mind, it is the back bone of America, don’t ever let anyone tell you to shush!!!!! EVER!!!
P.S. I don’t use CAPS to yell, I use it to STRESS a point, so I was not YELLING at any point in this comment!!!
@Lucy,
To answer one of your questions right off the bat, yes I do think that the federal government has over stepped its bounds. The Constitution set up the government system so that the federal government had limited power, that states had the power to govern their own people. Now, the Federal Government has taken over the banking industry, the auto industry, the healthcare industry, and now wants to take over the ‘marriage industry’? Where is it doing to stop?
The federal government has the job to protect our country, our borders and well, go as AZ; they’re not doing their job. And they’re trying to stop AZ from protecting their own borders.
The bailout pissed me off. I will be honest, I work for a GM auto dealer. I know that if the government hadn’t stepped in my job may very well have disappeared and I would be unemployed. At which point I could live off the state, but don’t get me started on that rant. That’s a whole other argument. I want to think that if the government hadn’t stepped in, if AIG, GM, had been left to fend for themselves they would have found a way out of the mess they were in. My daughters even said “Mom why are they being rewarded for bad behavior? They made this mess, they need to fix it”
My whole point of this post was that allowing same sex marriage adds nothing and takes nothing away from male/female marriage. There is no legal reason to deny them this right. There is nothing to be gained by refusing them, there is nothing to be lost in allowing it.
Prop 8 was voter approved, and yet, it doesn’t matter. The voters spoke, and even when it passed, it was instantly appealed, and put on hold. To me it screams “We don’t care what you the voters want, we’re going to fight you until we have no other options!” What’s the point of elections if we’re going to ignore the voters?