Reply to What's with all the "gaytred" in the past couple of days?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "What's with all the "gaytred" in the past couple of days?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Please don't equate opposition to gay marriage, which until a few short years ago would have been considered an extremely radical social concept, with "gay bashing" and, uh, "gaytred."   While I agree that society is moving in that direction, most people aren't there yet, so don't vilify legislators who vote against this agenda.  [b]Frankly, because this effects such fundamental social change, it should be put on the ballot as in New Jersey.[/b] 
[/quote]

And there I believe is one of the most egregious injustices if this is allowed to happen.  It is WRONG to allow the civil rights of a minority to be dictated by the majority.  This  nation was founded on the principle that minorities especially minority religions should have the freedom to practice as they so choose without persecution and without restriction.  Why should larger churches have the right to dictate whether smaller churches can legally marry two people of the same gender?  Why should any church have that say over people who don't practice any religion?  Trying to prevent gay marriages by law is a form of religious persecution and should be fought.  And most definitely, civil rights should not be put to a public referendum.

In addition, while many conservatives who are opposed to marriage equality say they do so on the grounds of the definition of marriage, they are fighting the wrong battle.  That battle is over the fact that civil marriage and religious marriage, which should be separate entities are not separate in the eyes of the government.  It is a requirement of government to treat all citizens equally and to allow them the same benefits regardless of their gender.  If the conservatives don't want the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages, then they should be lobbying for all references to marriage in the laws to be changed to civil unions and then there would be no government establishment of any rights tied to marriage.  Then governments would grant civil unions along with the rights bestowed to citizens upon such a union and religious institutions would grant the right to marry or be married in the eyes of their institution.  However, as long as government has only one word to define a legal union between two consenting adults, then all rights tied to that union MUST be given equally to all citizens who contract such a union.  And it is not sufficient to establish a separate civil union for some while still maintaining marriage for others.  The problem is that you create a "separate but equal" segregation.  While you may be able to make sure that at the time of enactment, all rights granted by a marriage are also granted to a civil union, you cannot establish it that they will always maintain the same rights.  There will be legislators who will find ways to grant rights or restrictions to one or the other and they will become unequal again. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics