Friday, September 30, 2005

Schwarzenegger's Veto

According to the Washington Post, California governor vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, saying that "This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue."

Out of curiosity, I searched on the House of Representatives site of the Constitution, looking for words like marriage, matrimony, marry, husband, wife .... and came up with zero results.

I then went to The US Constitution Online, where a search of "marriage" comes up with a "Constitutional Topic: Marriage" page, which points out the fact that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution." On the "Not Mentioned" page, it states that "Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point."

I guess it's just the logician that my engineering mind has created that takes issue with all of this. Why should it matter what the sexual orientation of a priest is? They're not supposed to be having sex. Period.

If you're against gay marriage because you don't like the idea of homosexual people, great, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion. But ... say it, and give the real reason.

The argument that "We must uphold the integrity of the institution of marriage" is a load of hooey. I'm not saying that the integrity of marriage doesn't need to be improved by any means, because there's LOTS of help needed for it. But I think of one of the signs with the San Francisco marriages (or maybe it was Boston): "50% of marriages end in divorce. What, you afraid that we'll do better?" An article in the Washington Post a while back, pointing out how "Who would have believed that Britney Spears would end up striking a blow for gay marriage?" -- I didn't understand what they were talking about, because I missed her same-day wedding/divorce combination, where by the time the newspapers were able to report the wedding, it was already over and done with. And yet I also saw pictures (San Fran or Boston) of a pair of women who had been together for 54 years. Yes, that is a huge threat to the sanctity of the sacred commitment that a marriage entails. They should be more like Britney.

You can't tell me that a couple that has been together for 54 years without social acceptance is less of a bond than the quickies thrown out by Vegas wedding chapel hosts. You want to strengthen the significance of the commitment? There are FAR better places to begin. How about prenups? Those "agreements" where it is stated that "We are going to get married, but if (when) we split up, this is what I get to keep and this is what you get to keep." Yep, that REALLY helps people lock into a commitment.

I guess I just get annoyed at all these fake arguments that are used so people can look all politically correct and sound like they're doing the right thing when what they're doing is for all the wrong reasons. You don't want gays in the seminary because you don't like gays? Then say that. Don't give some garbage about how it's to help them keep from temptation. You don't want gays married because you don't like gays? Then say that. Don't give some garbage about the integrity of the institution.

NARGH!!!! If you're gonna argue a point and try to make it passable, at least use logical statements that actually SUPPORT your cause.

But ..... I'll get off my rant-box now. Off to teach Social Justice! :-)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who Links Here