Can someone explain this to me ...

California voters approve gay-marriage ban - Yahoo! News
I mean, honestly, I don't get it.  Help me out.

So, from the perspective of the church, marriage is a holy and sacred thing ordained by God with very stringent rules and limitations on circumstance and behavior to be applied.  I get that, and don't argue the point even though I think I could.  The church's right to their crazy views is, thanks be to God, protected by our CONSTITUTION. ;-)>

From the state's perspective, however, a marriage is nothing more than two separate legal entities that represent individual citizens joining into a single legal entity for sharing of assets and liabilities of both fiduciary and other nature.

Given an appropriate separation of church and state, and that the state has not considered homosexuality illegal for quite some time. how can the state NOT acknowledge the rights of two consenting adults join their assets and liabilities into a single legal entity?

It occurs to me that the church, or someone, is undermining our constitution by adding what is in fact an UNCONSTITUTIONAL constitutional amendment.  That is, of course, precisely why an amendment is needed.  Any law short of that would be stricken as unconstitutional.  We don't want to play by the rules, so let's change them.  In some cases that's the right thing to do, but I don't see it that way in this case.

Maybe we should all stop and reflect on that for a moment before the next big gay-marriage-ban vote.  Also, reflect on this: The SAME laws that protect your right to lead the life that you choose to lead (go to church, kill animals for pleasure, eat foods known to lead to heart disease, have sex with your spouse at any time and in any way that you choose, etc. etc. etc.) have to apply broadly to ALL people, even those whose behavior you don't understand or condone, provided no one is placed in immediate danger of loss or harm by such action.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  If we are to be a pluralistic society (as opposed to a fundamentalist society), we MUST have the gold-standard of our law be the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have them to unto you.  If I were gay and in a committed relationship, I'd want to be able to get on my significant other's insurance and share a bank account.  I don't see how that undermines the family more than the divorce-on-demand and me-first attitudes that permeate our culture top to bottom.

I really want to understand the other perspective.  Someone explain it.  Please.

Comments

masbury said…
Well said - thanks!
masbury said…
I find it ironic that the conservative government/conservative religious set so admires small government, limited in power, while favoring big government smackdown on issues like this.

Big military, too - at half our budget, the ultimate big-government program - often travels in this company.

Strange, eh?

Popular posts from this blog

Detecting Transaction Isolation Level through Profiler Trace and other means on MS SQL Server 2005

Regular Expressions in SQL Server, DB2 UDB, and Oracle