OP-ED: Can We Please Move Beyond Prop. 8 -- and Marriage Itself?
- Details
- By Brian Addison Follow @FoucaultDude
- | Thursday, 09 February 2012 06:25
11:45am | This is not your typical Proposition 8 opinion.
I am not here to praise
nor denounce the
As an openly gay man, I am not even here for reasons that have to do with my so-called rights -- because everyone is seeming to miss that this issue is not about gay rights. It's about marriage -- and for me, that's exactly where the problem lies.
We have two opposing sides: a typically conservative one in which belief of marriage is between a man and a woman since they procure babies and develop the traditional notion of a family; on the other side, a typically liberal view that a couple is a couple, despite baby-making capabilities, and all couples deserve the same benefits proffered by being married.
The initial part of my crux comes with the fact that both sides are rather twisted in their logic. Firstly, we have what is no doubt a contract between two people, no different than a business partnership in which two individuals agree to certain terms and opt to make that business/marriage theirs through their choices, contributions, and behaviors. Conservatives, ironically the ones asking for the least amount of governmental interference -- particularly amongst business contracts -- are essentially asking for more governmental interference; they would like the government to dictate and regulate what a legal relationship is. Liberals, in the same torsional twist of irony, often claim that the exact problem with human rights is the government designating definitions for humans, creating an unfair hierarchy, e.g. citizen versus alien, where rights become suspended; they claim, "We're all just humans" and yet want the government to favor married couples over everyone else.
Before I have cosmos thrown at me and religious texts stacked around me, I want to emphasize a few things. With regards to the left, I understand that it is entirely inhuman and unfair that a couple, due to gender, cannot visit their loved one in a hospital, for one of many examples of the inequality same-sex couples experience. With regards to the right, I understand that without procreation, our species would not survive. I get this.
My issue lies in
a simple space: marriage, in and of itself, is not what is required for
both equal rights to be granted (there is the option to provide rights
to both married and unmarried couples and individuals, y'know) and our species to
continue (2007 marked the year where over 40% of
babies were created out of wedlock). My caveat is marriage itself and
why, under any circumstance, the government is involved in such an
affair and grants a disproportionate amount of benefits on two people who
have to do little else than walk into a City Hall and say, "I do" -- be it gay or straight or [insert sexual identity here]. In
fact, despite being gay, I could grab my female roommate, marry her, and
be blessed with over 1,000 social and legal and economic and political benefits for doing...
Absolutely nothing. It is as profligate as it is redundant. We call marriage the highest form of a relationship
and yet, we permit compulsive initiation into this sanctified institution as well as
compulsive abandonment of it, as seen by the exorbitant divorce rate.
Unmarried America is the one suffering from this
rather banal debate. In fact, in a
report by Business Weekly, single people -- which make up 42% of the
workforce and over half of households -- receive penalties for being
single, ranging from higher taxes to fewer job benefits. Sadly, we are
building a social ladder that is relegated to those who choose to engage
in a legally-recognized sexual relationship -- an odd, if not outright
baffling concept especially if we take the word "individual" in the
Constitution to mean anything.
This is not to say that I am entirely against married couples receiving
certain benefits that will help contribute to society or benefit
business; contrarily, I agree such benefits should exist. My problem
lies in, 1) benefits that should be extended to single people and are
not; and 2) that such benefits should not be given just because two
people say, "I do," but rather because they have built an established
relationship within society (e.g. living together for several years
before marrying or successfully getting their child into school before
being granted the benefits).
Until marriage in and of itself becomes what it touts itself to be -- a
timely, un-compulsive dedication of two people who help foster each
other's aspirations and goals which, in turn, benefits society via their
contributions -- instead of being a contract that requires little
oversight, little regulation, and little thought, the government
shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
So are gay couples fighting/complaining about certain rights? Or are they complaining/fighting because they want to be put in the position of traditional couples.
When you find the answer to that, you find the root at all of this, which is a culture war, whereas one sub-culture is fighting to push it's secular-progressive agenda and worldview down everyone's throat (exactly what they cry foul about the right for doing).
If you are for social-engineering, and allowing the left-wing worldview to be what's taught/brainwashed into our youth, then your motivations on issues like this become entirely obvious.
An allowance being made for gay unions is one thing, but pressing for the government to sign off on "homosexuality is normal", or "homosexuality is good", is the same type of abuse that the liberal left usually cries foul over... which demonstrates their core intellectual dishonesty.
Brian, I cannot agree with all you suggest however I do agree the government should get out of the business of marriage.
Once again we see the proof of a well-known fact of life: When the government gets involved in a "service', it will eventually become complicated, expensive, unmanageable, not transparent, unreasonable and somewhat arbitrary and even dictatorial. This is true from a simple service such as street cleaning and tree trimming to more complicated services such as Building and Safety Codes, license fees and Inspections to the distribution of natural gas and the operation of public transportation. (I did not even want to mention education). All of the above could be and has in past been the responsibilies of private companies with government oversight.
This isn't a left/right, liberal/conservative issue, but Eagle Eye is stupid enough to think so. It's a right/wrong, equal/unequal issue. Period. He's afraid of gays, so he labels them a subculture. He's afraid of them because he can't relate to them. Well, I can't relate to Eagle Eye, and he's lucky we don't legislate against stupid, because what he is asking for here is the same thing.
If you go back 10 years when gays were fighting for equal rights, i.e., their loved ones being present in life and death situations, gays said they were for fairness, not gay marriage. Since then, while given the rights they fought for; now they are asking to legalize gay marriage.
As Eagle Eye said; their goal now is social engineering. Most parents have to send their children to public schools for financial reasons, a place where social engineering should not be promoted. Parents will no longer be able to pull their children from classes where they object to the curiculum because of the laws our liberal politicians in California will pass. Any parent objecting will face a hate crime accusation.
It is like the contraception debate going on now with Obama's health care bill; forcing institutions to go against their beliefs. Taking the freedoms away from one person or group has to be taken into consideration. If the fight to maintain marriage between a man and women is lost, all we will have left is social engineering.
This is a topic that only benefits condescending liberals, because, taking the rights away from the majority is the goal of liberals. They want a complete nanny state where politicians call all of the shots.
Power is dangerous when you put it into the hands of the state.
LOL Do you realize how silly that sounds? I have a schizophrenic brother and he always likes to use that phrase. Seriously that is just a completely bizarre assessment in my eyes.
Also comical (and clearly you do not have the brain power to see it): You are fine with eliminating other people's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (fyi that is in the constitution)but your panties are in a twist because a church who employs someone might have to actually do the right thing and take real care of their employees? Wow.
Have you asked yourself today "What would Jesus do?" Because I did and the answer is that he would be tolerant and let GOD be the judge of all our evils in the afterlife.
This isn't about social engineering, it's about equality. Do you really think gays are like pedophiles, as Eagle Eye claims? Do you know your history? Gays have had to gain their societal respect in baby steps, just like freeing the slaves and a woman's right to vote. What if California voters passed a ballot initiative that took away a woman's right to vote? Shouldn't hsppen, right? The Ninth just said it's the same thing here.
Want to know the best part? For all your bitching and moaning, you and Eagle Eye and all the other whiny bigots are on the losing end of this one. The U.S. Supreme Court probably won't even hear this case. Just ask around. You're going to live in a state that lets gays marry! Isn't that exciting? Vive la difference!!!
Of course, if you just can't stand it, I'm sure there are more than a few people who would help you and Eagle Eye pack. Let us know.
Why do we reward couples who cavalierly enter into and then end their marriages? Why do we further reward these individuals with tax cuts if their short-lived union produces offspring? Why does a single childless person pay more taxes even though they use less resources, like public schools? Why can't a non-blood relative visit a loved one in the hospital?
Kathy Ryan and Eagle Eye speak of "social engineering." I say let the social re-engineering begin!
When I see that picture with the poor innocent child being forced to pose with a sign that says "my mommy says it's ok that I'm gay", I shudder to think what kind of brainwashing that child is subjected to behind closed doors. It also makes me weep for the children who might be placed into the care of gays, and will never have a chance to realize nor defend against this.
When you purposely distort the positions of others, it proves that you are unwilling/unable to deal with reality.
A man and wife join together, become a couple, have children and become parents, and that is how a family is formed. The one who REALLY is "afraid" is you... Afraid to deal with truth and reality. You deny the very truths right in front of your face, and instead convince yourself that you are smarter, and come up with notions about life which cater to your fears and insecurity; ie SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
If you want to do whatever sexual practices you want to do in your own home, or your own bedroom, you have the freedom to do that. Attempting to tell everyone else though, that your practices and associations should be treated the same as what they are not, is akin to saying a dog is a cat.
A better analogy is akin to you comparing your agenda to the struggle faced by black people. Ironically though, you do not like it when another group is compared to YOU.
Oh! You don't like comparisons being made between you and other groups? Maybe now you understand how black people feel, when you use them to further your agenda???
It is audacity like I've never seen, for you all to compare your agenda to the struggles and challenges faced by black people, and not only that, but to then turn around and trivialize real racism, by using the race card even???
So please don't cry foul about being compared to other groups, especially when they are actually in the same category with you. If you get to claim that you have no choice in your sexual behavior, because you were born with your orientation, then pedophiles get to make the same argument.
And that is quite different, being judged by your actions, versus being judged by the color of your skin.
Can we now also put an end to gays playing the victim card???
This passive-aggressive behavior, is precisely what creates much of the confrontations that gays get themselves involved in.
If you are the bully yourself, and willing to bully people into accepting your views and opinions, then it is the hypocrisy of all hypocrisies when you cry foul about the very thing you are guilty of yourselves.
One more thing- I'm not gay.
When does Bekins get to your house? The gays are coming!
If, through marriage, we extend certain government-managed benefits and priveleges to one couple, but withhold them from another *solely* on the basis of their sexual orientation I think this is unlawfully discriminatory and, so, completely improper.
The true crux of this challenge does not reside in religion but, rathr, in the existence of government-managed benefits and privileges extended through marriage.
To remain fully compliant with our federal constitution, we must either remove government from the marriage equation altogether -or- we must not unlawfully discriminate between one couple and another based *solely* upon their sexual orientation.
Isn't that what this is really all about?
Would you please cite the article and section of the constitution where the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" exists?
Apparently, you believe that churches must provide free health insurance which includes free birth control, the morning after pill and voluntary sterilization. Please explain how the constitution permits this in light of the First Amendment clauses, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
Also, you contend that Ms. Ryan's "social engineering" remark is silly because your schizophrenic brother uses that phrase. Please logically explain why, if your brother used "hope and change", you would not conclude that hope and change is silly or "is just a completely bizarre assessment in [your] eyes".
Thanks in advance!
Regrettably, you have missed my points. LBCityGirl posted an ad hominem attack that insulted her opponent's intelligence. I merely showed how some of her own statements were either ignorant or logically invalid, thereby calling into question CityGirl's own intelligence.
"splitting hairs" inaccurately describes mistaking the origin of what is quite probably the Declaration of Independence's most famous phrase. Splitting hairs would be me making an issue over small details or unimportant issues such as a typo or an insignificant exaggeration.
To confuse, misunderstand or simply not know the differences between the constitution and the Declaration is alarmingly ignorant. These two principle founding documents have entirely different purposes. One cannot adduce a credible argument by shoehorning words from one into the other.
My post did not relate to gay marriage at all. Therefore, it is impossible for you to have surmised my "point of view" vis a vis Prop 8 based on my comments.
And his argument falls apart as so as we look back in history, 1959 specifically, when Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in Va. for being married. I wonder if he two believes that "Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on different continents. And with but for the interferance with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."
If gays and lesbians were not meant to marry, shouldn't they have been placed on difference continents from each other as well?
BTW, the tax breaks that apply to federal marriage and procreation as nothing more then government programs that favor a very specific segment of society, much like welfare and food stamps.