Wednesday, July 4, 2012

What we were, what we could be

We all know these words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We also know that this is all fine and good unless in the course of your pursuit of happiness you feel the urge to marry someone of the same gender, or to have a group marriage.  No, those pursuits, so many of our states have have decided, are off limits. 

I understand and respect the need for limits. Those whose happiness comes from killing others, to pick but one extreme example, most certainly need limits, and it is society's job to place and enforce those limits.  That job, though, is necessary only when the acts of one person hurt others.

Whom does it hurt for two men to marry?  Two women?  Five people of whatever gender? 

If you want to make the discussion economic--think of the impact on small businesses!--fine, we can talk about that.  We can work that problem. 

In the end, though, the stupid limits, the laws like my own state's recent amendment, don't pass for rational reasons. They pass because people are afraid that letting others pursue their happiness by marrying differently will in some way hurt them or undermine the institution of marriage. 

It's nonsense, and I'm embarrassed of my state for embracing it.

On a day I love, the Fourth of July, I want to be proud of my country.  I want to be proud of my state. 

What I don't want is to have to meet a young gay man at a party--at my party--and know that he has to leave this state if he wants to marry his lover, yet that is exactly what I did today. I hate that.  I rage against it.  We all should. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I personally feel that the government should just stay out of marriage all together. It should be a freedom devoid of government control. And anyone can go into a legal union between themselves devoid of any out side bias and given the same government support marriages have always had. And as much as your gay lesbian point is important so is polygamy and non-sexual/non-intimate unions. (Personaly polygamy brings up too many problems and cheapens the concept of marrige between others because it is no longer just between 2 people but that doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right)

That being said in no way should these unions be able to void any laws. And not all unions should be considered the same. A union planning on starting or already has started a family (children) dissevers more/different benefits then those that aren't. And this in its self would bring out biases so in the end what I think would solve nothing.



Blog Archive