In case you forgot how I really feel about things ...
Tonight's NBC Nightly News ....
Please.
It's a word, a semantic issue. A word, however, that involves over 1100 federal laws and policies that get conferred by marriage. But .... are we trying to turn the Constitution into a dictionary? Do we truly have nothing more active to do with our meager-debt-ridden resources?
How much time, money, and energy has gone into this issue? How does it compare with the time, money, and energy that has gone into, oh I don't know, child homelessness?
There is no one who was hurt by Kendra and Amy's ceremony last weekend (well, unless you count Trista and I, and all the rest of us not deemed worthy enough to warrant an invitation). Maybe people didn't like it, but no one was hurt. So our Senators are going to debate an issue about something that some people don't like, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Meanwhile, other issues that are actually causing physical hurt, pain, and perhaps even death will get tabled for a later meeting.
It's a word. It's just a word. The only people injured by this word and its definition are the people who are excluded by it. Whether Kendra and Amy can be considered "married" does not affect me or my life at all. In fact, it doesn't affect anyone else. They are the only two people affected by that ceremony. It's just the same as when Homer and Marge got married (provided we disregard the animation issue). No one else was involved or directly affected. After all, isn't a marriage between two people?
You can say that it's wrong, you can say that it's immoral, but you know what? I bet they'd be a couple either way. Calling them "wrong" won't change their feelings for one another, nor will it change their relationship. Passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage won't change their relationship either. It won't make them any less connected to one another. In fact, if anything, it says even more about their commitment --- that they're willing to bind their lives together without all the benefits of "marriage."
If there's a problem with same-gendered people committing their lives to one another, then marriage is not the issue. Who is in love with whom is the issue. Who's going out with whom is the issue. Whether you call it "marriage" or not, there will still be people with one kind of body parts hanging out with other people of the same body parts. Defining marriage will not change that.
If there's a problem with the "sacred institution of marriage", however, then defining the word won't be the solution either. As far as I know, no happily married couple has been split apart by the existance of anatomically similar couples. Oh, but we'll just leave all the pre-nups, online divorces, and celebrity quickies alone.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where the issues that are argued are in fact the issues that matter? Wouldn't it be nice to have people say their real reasons for wanting things the way they do? Wouldn't it be nice to have reasonable priorities that focus on alleviating harm first and foremost? Wouldn't it be nice if "playing nice" and "doing the right thing" outranked "what people will think" and "but I have an election to win"?
And while I'm at it ....
Susie Derkins wants a pony (click for clearer image)
Originally uploaded by SrStephOSB.
With his approval ratings low, steady bad news out of Iraq, problems with the immigration bill, and elections in November looming, the timing of the gay marriage debate is welcomed by the president and his party.I've posted plenty on this issue. What I simply want to say is supported by both the lead-in comment and Joe Biden's thoughts: Let's focus on what's really important.
Senator Joe Biden's comments?
We don't have enough vaccines, we don't have enough police officers, and we're gonna debate the next three weeks, I'm told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else?
Senator George Allen:
Insofar as that sacred institution of marriage -- it ought to be protected, and this constitutional amendment would actually do so.
Please.
It's a word, a semantic issue. A word, however, that involves over 1100 federal laws and policies that get conferred by marriage. But .... are we trying to turn the Constitution into a dictionary? Do we truly have nothing more active to do with our meager-debt-ridden resources?
How much time, money, and energy has gone into this issue? How does it compare with the time, money, and energy that has gone into, oh I don't know, child homelessness?
There is no one who was hurt by Kendra and Amy's ceremony last weekend (well, unless you count Trista and I, and all the rest of us not deemed worthy enough to warrant an invitation). Maybe people didn't like it, but no one was hurt. So our Senators are going to debate an issue about something that some people don't like, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Meanwhile, other issues that are actually causing physical hurt, pain, and perhaps even death will get tabled for a later meeting.
It's a word. It's just a word. The only people injured by this word and its definition are the people who are excluded by it. Whether Kendra and Amy can be considered "married" does not affect me or my life at all. In fact, it doesn't affect anyone else. They are the only two people affected by that ceremony. It's just the same as when Homer and Marge got married (provided we disregard the animation issue). No one else was involved or directly affected. After all, isn't a marriage between two people?
You can say that it's wrong, you can say that it's immoral, but you know what? I bet they'd be a couple either way. Calling them "wrong" won't change their feelings for one another, nor will it change their relationship. Passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage won't change their relationship either. It won't make them any less connected to one another. In fact, if anything, it says even more about their commitment --- that they're willing to bind their lives together without all the benefits of "marriage."
If there's a problem with same-gendered people committing their lives to one another, then marriage is not the issue. Who is in love with whom is the issue. Who's going out with whom is the issue. Whether you call it "marriage" or not, there will still be people with one kind of body parts hanging out with other people of the same body parts. Defining marriage will not change that.
If there's a problem with the "sacred institution of marriage", however, then defining the word won't be the solution either. As far as I know, no happily married couple has been split apart by the existance of anatomically similar couples. Oh, but we'll just leave all the pre-nups, online divorces, and celebrity quickies alone.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where the issues that are argued are in fact the issues that matter? Wouldn't it be nice to have people say their real reasons for wanting things the way they do? Wouldn't it be nice to have reasonable priorities that focus on alleviating harm first and foremost? Wouldn't it be nice if "playing nice" and "doing the right thing" outranked "what people will think" and "but I have an election to win"?
And while I'm at it ....
Susie Derkins wants a pony (click for clearer image)
Originally uploaded by SrStephOSB.
posted by Steph Youstra at 12:13 AM
2 Comments:
He. Needs. To. Get. A. Life.
Next day here. I had a dream last night about this very issue. (Link: here) Must be the 6-6-6 date.
Post a Comment
<< Home