Re: gay marriage
I used to be against marriage in general, but in reading about it in relation to gay marriage, I've changed my mind somewhat.
To me, it makes sense to have a legal institution available for permanent, monogamous adult relationships that's discrete from platonic relationships that aren't monogamous. That's not to say that I wouldn't like certain privileges available to a couple of siblings who decide to establish a household. It's just that those relationships are generally not intended to be permanent or exclusive. It strikes me that you'd need more leeway to define those types of contracts individually. With a permanent, monogamous relationship between two adults, you can reasonably assume the package deal--shared assets, shared responsibilities, mutual decision making powers, etc.. IOW, the marriage contract is pretty narrowly designed for what we currently think of as marriage. And there's no reason at all to discriminate against couples based on what sex the adults are. In fact, it seems weird to me that even so many people who want gay marriage feel that it opens up the doors for all these other permutations and such. Does not. Gay marriage fits pretty seamlessly into the contract as it stands.
As far as how to win the fight, I don't know, but I've always thought that maybe driving home the difference between a civil marriage and a church marriage is fundamental. Civil marriage is nothing but a binding legal contract issued by the state. No sanctity there. The sanctity part comes in with the church marriage or the individual vows.
It seems to me that these people who want their religion to have such influence over state matters fail to recognize the inevitability that the state will in turn exert influence over their religion. People whose religion is in the majority might think that's no big deal right now, but what about when the state decides to put a little finer point on which sects they endorse and which they won't? What about when the state starts to exert influence over very specific doctrines? What about when they (as we are already seeing) start equating religious beliefs with political platforms?
There's just no doubt in my mind that, even for those with remarkably self-serving perspectives on the issues, there's going to be some point at which they'll realize they've been fucked over.
And me? I'll be pointing and laughing, because I totally told them so.
|
Threaded Mode
