So, the high court in Massachusetts
decided that same-sex couple
s can become legal
in that state. Well, good for them.
The Republicans are assuredly trying to find ways to circumvent this ruling, you can hear the rattle and clink as the conservatives pull on their armor and get ready to go to battle over this latest liberal victory. Here in the Bible-ridden south all I can hear these days is about how "we don't want no gays getting married here", and how the "entire world is going to hell".
None of the right-wing statements I have heard lately about same-sex marriage make a logical point about why gay couples shouldn't be able to legally marry. They point to the Bible and talk about family and God, but address absolutely none of the practical, logistical or legal aspects and consequences of this concept.
Here are some level headed statements that don't call on a diety that hates gay people:
1. Gay people being married will not hurt you. Gay couples exist now, gay couples recognized legally will still be gay couples, nothing will have changed there. If gay people offend your sensibilities, fine, but guess what, idiots really piss me off.
2. Legalized same-sex marriages are just that, legalized. Gay couples will be entitled to the health and financial benefits that spouses are entititled to. They would be recongized as "immediate family" to their partner. I don't see how this threatens the immediate well being of your run of the mill Republican. Actually, I don't see how this inconveniences them at all.
3. Same-sex marriages would not be any different than inter-sex marriages. This means, folks, that the downsides apply just as much as the upsides. A gay couple wants a divorce? That means divorce court and division of mutual assets, just as it would to any straight couple. No one gets a free lunch, the same rules apply to everyone.
This seems very cut and dry to me, and I am a fairly conservative Democrat. The crux of the argument I see right now is, "We don't like gay people, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to get married because we don't like them." There are some words that describe this argument, and I'm pretty sure that discrimination is among them.
I'm not gay.
points out that the concept of marriage in this country is greatly rooted in religious origin
s. This cannot be argued. Our government has caused the institution
to be given certain privilege
s such as tax breaks and benefits that are not afforded to those that are not married. kthejoker
pointed out that this has socialist
overtones and I agree. The boundary is crossed however when a state-sponsored legal entity (the "marriage") is created that affords certain persons these priveleges, and discriminates against those that do not fit a religious definition of what this marriage means. The solution: either eliminate the state sponsorship, or afford everyone, regardless of their beliefs, the ability to engage in this institution under the same rules.