Yesterday I thought the big story would be the Republican sweep of key bell weather races – which they took 2 of 3 – but the bigger story to come out from Election Day is what took place in Maine. The Legislature in Maine pasted a law allowing same-sex couples to wed and was signed by the Governor. Despite the new law a measure was on the Maine ballot to repeal the same-sex marriage law. "With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved to repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05maine.html). The repeal makes Maine the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage when allowed to be voted on by the general populous.
In my blog entry, A Better Approach, I addressed the constitutional state amendment passed by Californians that defined marriage "between a man and a woman" where I offered a better approach to the same-sex marriage issue. At that time I even emailed a group call OutFront to offer up my approach. Even though 87 percent of the precincts have reported, gay-marriage supporters are holding out hope and are unwilling to concede the voice of the people. Frank Schubert who organized the campaign to repeal the gay-marriage law said that a victory will be a "backbreaking loss" for gay-rights activists while Jesse Connolly, organizer of the pro-gay marriage campaign, is holding out hope that when the remaining 13 percent of precincts report that victory will be achieved.
The bigger question here is twofold. Why is it that State Representation is passing laws that constituents are clearly saying they do not want? Why are Americans continually looking to Government to cure their plights? The issue of marriage is not a social issue that ought to have government involvement. The decision to spend one's life with another ought to be done in private. By allowing the Government to regulate marriage through the issuance of a "marriage" license means it's a privilege and not everyone is entitled to participate. It is time for Americans to wake up and realize that Government is not the answer to this issue. By removing the Government from the equation will have a ripple effect.
The ripple effect will be evident as the restrictions that same-sex couples argue they experience will dissipate as those institutions will no longer have the shield of marriage to hide behind. Americans – straight or gay – need to realize that the issue of marriage is a solemn arrangement to many and one that Government ought not to play a role in. Use the fact that 31 states have repealed same-sex marriage laws and rally to limit Government intrusion into our private lives. The populous is speaking loudly that Government is not the answer and when all the votes are counted in Maine will send that signal no matter how razor thin the result may be.
Why do gay-right activists, and other Americans, not realize that looking to Government for the answer is the wrong approach?
You want equality in abortion rights but not in love? All gay-rights activists want is to have the same benefits afforded to straight couples who want them. It's the right to make life ending medical decisions, to inherit, to not be treated differently. Who else can provide these other than the government?
ReplyDeleteOh, and just because the majority feels one doesn't mean it's the right way. If that were the case, women and minorities wouldn't be able to vote today.
Anon..did you read what I wrote either today or back in March? Please re-read because I am not advocating an inequity in love. Actually I am advocating the opposite. What is being played out in America in regards to same-sex marriage is a symptom of a bigger problem; Government infringement upon our rights as Americans.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my entry today, if we remove Government from the equation a ripple affect will take place. We need to, as a society, de-program "Government is the answer" to all our ills.
In respect to the three examples you listed:
Medical decisions - Get a power of attorney
Inheritance - A living will
Treated differently - that is something the government cannot protect same-sex couples from.
Please re-read my March entry and you will see that Government is not the answer but the problem. Even though I believe in the nuclear family, I am intelligent and tolerant enough to acknowledge that not everyone chooses opposite sex life partners.
What is this ripple effect? I'm assuming you are willing to give up your marriage license and any benefit you receive from it too? That would be getting government out.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of power of attorneys, but lets be honest, most straight couples don't have one and when it comes to a medical emergency, people don't stop by the house to pull a power of attorney. While an advanced directive would be the most appropriate document, no one carries one of those around either.
A living will has nothing to do with inheritance.
The government has past numerous anti-discrimination laws for all kinds of things. So, yeah, it is something the government can protect people from. At a minimum, give them a legal avenue to protect themselves.
The ripple effect I speak of is this: If there is no such thing as a marriage license then places that offer insurance or look for next of kin to make major medical decisions will no longer have that shield to hide behind. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a choice.
ReplyDeleteThat fact alone is why the Government’s role in marriage is not warranted. Marriage, historically speaking, is a religious dogma. If we need a legal writ to ensure “rights” then transfer all marriage licenses to Civil Union certificates. Replacing the Marriage License with a Civil Union certificates will establish the legal standing the gay-activists are looking for while leaving marriage in religious dogma.
I will be the first to step up and hand in my marriage license for the certificate. Our country was founded on tolerance and compromise; so why do we not come to that here with the issue of same-sex couple’s quest for legal standing? Let’s work together to remove government from marriage and establish a legal writ known as a Civil Union certificate.
Your point on the marriage license is valid except that it has been given legal meaning and defines the relationship that gays are seeking. I'm all for renaming it, but the significane won't change.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that those who oppose gay marriage will openly welcome gay civil unions that bestow the benefits and rights gays are seeking through the right to marry? That a simple name change is all that is necessary?
CMH...yes, it is as simple as that. By moving away from the marriage license toward the certification of civil unions will establish equal legal footing for all while leaving government out of a religious dogma known as marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe reason it is that simple is because marriage is not a right. Marriage is dogma. It is due to the laziness of Americans that legal Government standing exists. We, as Americans, will be a better place if we reduce the size and scope of government rather than looking for government to be the answer.
How is government reduced by issuing a certificate named one thing instead of another that bestows the same rights? I find it hard to believe that those who oppose gay marriage on religious and moral grounds will be so willing to accept another form of union.
ReplyDeleteWhile I contend that Government should not involved at all, a compromise needs to be done because all people do have a right to pursue their own happiness. Outside of the religious fringe, the majority of religious people agree that people have the right to live their lives with whom they choose but argue that notion of marriage. The reason they argue the notion of marriage is because of its dogmatic roots.
ReplyDeleteRemove marriage, remove the license and replace it with civil unions, replace it with certificates. Unfortunately this compromise does not remove government from the equation but its a start and brings equity of life's choices.