The promblem with the Gay marrige Ruling inside from my roigloous is it was based on te Equal Protection Clause which arrises from the Civil war and civil rights era. There was somthing back then that I could do as a white man if I was born then that tha a black men coukd not marry a white women, as a white man now I have the same rights as a homosexual he can marry one women I can marry one women therefore strickly speaking there is a no specal treatment being given to me that he does not have I have the option of marrying one women so does he.
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things that I could say in response to this post, but I will contain myself to just one point. You ask and answer yourself that there are no benefits that same sex civil unions lose by not being a "marriage". You write that the benefits of a civil union and a marriage are the same except for the the blessing of the church. That simply is not true. People who are joined in a civil union whether they are a gay or straight, do not have the same benefits as people who are married. People in a civil union do not have any federal rights or protections...there are over a thousand of these rights including tax, health insurance, social security benefits, immigration status, vet/military benefits, to name a few. Civil unions are only granted the state rights in the state where the ceremony took place. Another huge difference in the civil union vs. marriage is the ability to move anywhere in the United States and have the civil union/marriage recognized. A marriage is recognized and all the benefits recognized in any state...a civil union is only recognized in that particular state. Regardless of what you think and believe about the morality of gay vs. straight marriage, there are a lot of government granted benefits that are being denied people who are allowed to only have a civil union. And that is not fair.