Gay Marriage or a redefinition of marriage in our society, what’s going on?
As a matter of an intro for those who don't know, I'm a single, straight, thirty one year old man from Lakeside, California located in glorious San Diego county and I currently reside in Ocean Beach.
An email was forwarded to me with a letter attached that essentially accuses those against proposition 8 (e.g. not against gay marriage) of wanting gay marriage taught in school in the context of "respect for marriage". Essentially, and I think both sides can agree, there is some relatively vague language in the California Education Code that needs to be revisited and rewritten to remove inconsistencies in the definition of marriage in terms of how it relates to sexual orientation. Rewriting those sections (220, 51500, 51933) is a topic for another time. The concern of the anti-gay marriage movement in this letter is really whether gay behavior (call it "marriage" or not) should be taught in school.
Gay marriage taught in school. Is learning about gay marriage a threat? My thought is that this shouldn't be an issue about marriage being taught in school any more than other modern day unions being taught in school. There are plenty of unions (or marriages) that should be explained in school as a matter of simple social studies on a local, national, and global scale (odd note: It turns out that there's a lot of gay sex in adolescent male Bottle-Nosed dolphin world. But they're pushing for marriage in Florida this election so we don't need to factor that in.). There are countries whose 30-something men barter pigs and woven bags for teen wives (Papua New Guinea) while other oil-rich polygamists countries maintain harems as long as the money is there (Saudi Arabia and friends). These are relationships that exist in the world and that behavior should be taught along with other behaviors. The judgment on whether a behavior has merit on a religious morality level lies at home where people are free to judge without reprisal. The facts will remain. There are gays, polygamists, monogamists, and isolationists. Yes, these are people in the world. 6 billion strokes to move the different folks of the world. But I digress...
Is there or should there be a legally defined hierarchy of these behaviors (marriages, unions)? There currently is. Is this position providing a service better than the alternative? In the context of raising kids, I'm curious to see the research projects, test cases and consequent statistics (provided by the opponents or supporters of gay marriage) that identify specific threats and benefits to kids and how the children of same sex couples fair compared to the children of opposite gender couples in a comparable scenario. How well adjusted are the kids? Education? Emotional stability? If there is actual, scientific data that confirms the worst, that harm is being done, I'll be happy to read it. Until then, keep the studies moving.
Ultimately, if there is an injustice in the laws, a change should be made. What I mean is, if there is more than more than one way to maintain a successful family unit with evidence of an overall positive effect on society and there are laws in place or proposed that prohibit that family unit, those laws should be changed or defeated. If it is a matter of heaven and hell, it should not be a government position to support one type of union over another. Unless we're communists on the subject of religion (I'm an Democratic Republic American).
In regards to the tax policy on marriage, I strongly disagree with tax breaks for marriage in and of itself (Not because I'm single!). In terms of marriage and tax cuts, the only reasonable conclusion I have seen is for tax relief to be given on a per-child, per-responsibility basis. The government and society as a whole do benefit from people raising successful children and extensive tax relief should be offered for anyone who is legally and financially responsible for raising a child. Tax cuts should not affect someone just for getting married.
To me, the biggest issue of the pro-marriage movements should be that of the big decisions in life and death as they relate to the family unit. For example, I think someone's spouse should have legal dominance in certain decisions their spouse may not be able to make such as funeral (burial vs. cremation), life support (when to "pull the tube"), hospital visitation rights, that kind of thing. Let's not forget timeshare presentations too!
I imagine the early Utah Mormons lobbying for statehood went through a lot of the same discussions and heard a lot of the same comparisons as gays are hearing in California now in terms of moral perversion, degradation of the societal structure, a threat to the American family and way of life, etc. They decided to concede the fight for polygamy until the afterlife for now. However, if the Mormon fundamentalists had won their battle to achieve statehood without compromising their right to marry in their own way (albeit morally perverted to most of the rest of the country), maybe gay marriage would have been tolerated a long time ago too. The fears of the anti-polygamist marriage lobbyists (who did win) have now seen their worst fears come to pass now that the gays are allowed to join together in unholy matrimony. So much would be different... Warren Jeffs et al wouldn't be locked up and a religious practice considered Eternal by some and unnatural and unethical by some would be legal in America making our relationship with Islamic people more friendly and personable (Allahu Akbar! He gave us the chocolate cake! ...and polygamy). I'm a dreamer.
I plan to vote No on the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Proposition" (AKA, Prop 8).
Anyone whose eternal views of marriage (or whatever name you give a permanent, interpersonal relationship) differ from that of "one-man, one-woman, 'till death do us part" would be better off voting No on prop 8 to allow gay marriage to continue its success and expansion which will encourage a more direct and complete discussion of creating a constitutionally fair definition of marriage and how it relates to our local, state, and federal governments.
As far as I can tell based on some of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage, here's the worst case scenario: Sodom will burn again.
But even then, there were some survivors. ...although one did transform into salt.
The best case scenario: A goat is elected Chancellor of the United Nations after her wife, the former Chancellor (who was a human female) died in a recycling accident. And people will focus on the family and not the genitals. Let's live the dream!
