Rant inspired by a radio debate
Sep. 10th, 2004 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
agilebritSo, I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday, and he had a couple of guys debating gay marriage on the air. And the one who supported gay marriage said, basically, "You can't impose your Biblically-based views on the rest of us."
And maybe it's just me being bitchy or PMS-y again, but my question is: "Why not?"
Why is my Biblically-based view of what the law should be any less valid than someone else's non- (or anti-, for that matter) Biblically based view? Why should I be disenfranchised just because my position on morality is based on the Bible? Have I suddenly become 3/5ths of a person, with the part of me whose views are Biblically-based not counting? Why should I have any less right than a gay person to petition my representatives and make my views known, just because I'm a Christian? And why should they dismiss my viewpoint out of hand, just because it agrees with a religion? Doesn't all law "impose morality"? So, I guess the major question becomes, "Whose morality are we going to impose?"
When left-wing religious people make their views known, no one says that they should shut up because their views are religious in nature. No one whines "Hey, you're imposing your morality" when someone opposes the death penalty by arguing that life and death are the purview of God alone. The media doesn't throw a hissy fit when a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist ties herself up in a tree for three months and tries to put a lumber company out of business. Nobody accuses an atheist of "imposing their morality" when they sue to get the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. No one minds when left-wing Catholics attempt to create government in the image of their Church by having that government provide services that have traditionally been under the scope of religious organizations. I don't see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being told to shut their mouths because they're Reverends and therefore don't have the right to speak out on issues of social justice and morality.
If the religious left is allowed to press for their agenda, based on their worldview, then by golly, I have that same exact right.
Let's face it. One way or another, we're going to get some kind of law "imposed" on us on the issue of gay marriage. Either the Legislature is going to do it by the will of the people, or the Judiciary is going to do it by fiat. And I know which I'd rather see, because judges in this country have been pulling law out of their asses for years now, and no one has the wrinklies to stand up to them and say "No, you're wrong, and we're not going follow this ruling."
Of course, the argument goes that, if we start ignoring judicial mandates, then we have chaos. But what do we have now? Seems like anytime a law gets passed these days, someone immediately sues, and then it has to wend its way through the courts until some unelected, unaccountable person in a black robe makes a decision. And if it's a law that 75% of the country agrees with, but some zealot of a judge doesn't want (for example, laws against partial- birth abortion--a procedure which never ever has to be used for the benefit of the health or to save the life of the woman, according to my ob-gyn, who teaches at the college and knows his business), then *BOOM* it gets struck down without so much as a by-your-leave.
What I see is that we have chaos now, because we can never be sure that a law passed will be a law that stays. So we have confusion over what the law is. When unelected, unaccountable people can decide on a flat whim that they don't like a law, and have the power to strike it down on the thinnest of Constitutional grounds, that's the next best thing to lawlessness. The judiciary branch of the government isn't supposed to make law for the rest of us, but they've come dangerously close to it on a number of occasions and continue to do so. And when they do that, we're all disenfranchised.
And maybe it's just me being bitchy or PMS-y again, but my question is: "Why not?"
Why is my Biblically-based view of what the law should be any less valid than someone else's non- (or anti-, for that matter) Biblically based view? Why should I be disenfranchised just because my position on morality is based on the Bible? Have I suddenly become 3/5ths of a person, with the part of me whose views are Biblically-based not counting? Why should I have any less right than a gay person to petition my representatives and make my views known, just because I'm a Christian? And why should they dismiss my viewpoint out of hand, just because it agrees with a religion? Doesn't all law "impose morality"? So, I guess the major question becomes, "Whose morality are we going to impose?"
When left-wing religious people make their views known, no one says that they should shut up because their views are religious in nature. No one whines "Hey, you're imposing your morality" when someone opposes the death penalty by arguing that life and death are the purview of God alone. The media doesn't throw a hissy fit when a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist ties herself up in a tree for three months and tries to put a lumber company out of business. Nobody accuses an atheist of "imposing their morality" when they sue to get the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. No one minds when left-wing Catholics attempt to create government in the image of their Church by having that government provide services that have traditionally been under the scope of religious organizations. I don't see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being told to shut their mouths because they're Reverends and therefore don't have the right to speak out on issues of social justice and morality.
If the religious left is allowed to press for their agenda, based on their worldview, then by golly, I have that same exact right.
Let's face it. One way or another, we're going to get some kind of law "imposed" on us on the issue of gay marriage. Either the Legislature is going to do it by the will of the people, or the Judiciary is going to do it by fiat. And I know which I'd rather see, because judges in this country have been pulling law out of their asses for years now, and no one has the wrinklies to stand up to them and say "No, you're wrong, and we're not going follow this ruling."
Of course, the argument goes that, if we start ignoring judicial mandates, then we have chaos. But what do we have now? Seems like anytime a law gets passed these days, someone immediately sues, and then it has to wend its way through the courts until some unelected, unaccountable person in a black robe makes a decision. And if it's a law that 75% of the country agrees with, but some zealot of a judge doesn't want (for example, laws against partial- birth abortion--a procedure which never ever has to be used for the benefit of the health or to save the life of the woman, according to my ob-gyn, who teaches at the college and knows his business), then *BOOM* it gets struck down without so much as a by-your-leave.
What I see is that we have chaos now, because we can never be sure that a law passed will be a law that stays. So we have confusion over what the law is. When unelected, unaccountable people can decide on a flat whim that they don't like a law, and have the power to strike it down on the thinnest of Constitutional grounds, that's the next best thing to lawlessness. The judiciary branch of the government isn't supposed to make law for the rest of us, but they've come dangerously close to it on a number of occasions and continue to do so. And when they do that, we're all disenfranchised.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 01:41 am (UTC)Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Always. There is not a society in history that has defined it as being between two men or two women. Occasionally, it's been defined as a man and more than one woman. But it's always involved people of the opposite sex. What we are being asked to do is to redefine marriage for everyone. All I said in my original rant was that my view of the issue is just as valid as anyone else's, and my view of exactly why I believe that is actually peripheral to the original rant.
What's amusing to me is that, on the one hand, you have some people saying "It's just a piece of paper," and on the other hand you have others clamoring for that "insignificant" piece of paper. The question then becomes, why do they need that piece of paper, if they're in a loving and committed relationship? Will it make any difference to the relationship? Why?
It's half-tempting to give in without a fight and let them see just how horrible a messy divorce can be--because if they want the "privileges" that come from being married, then they can have the baggage too.
Men and women bring different viewpoints and parenting techniques to a relationship. You can say all you want that it only matters if there are two people there, but that ignores the biological fact that men and women are different. And yes, I understand that people get married all the time, never intending to have children--my husband and I are prime examples. We are also prime examples of how the best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee.
I seem to have been misunderstood on the "adoption leads to pregnancy" remark. I didn't mean to imply that it happens all the time, and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings who's going through infertility.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 04:10 am (UTC)As you stated before, married couples get benefits, as do married couples with children. Do gay couples who adopt or artificially inseminate get tax exemptions?
Also, I'm glad this is a debate, rather than a kerfuffle. It's refreshing to have a smart, intellectual debate without flinging insults.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 11:48 am (UTC)I believe that there were some Native cultures that did have same-sex marriages, but that is largely besides the point in terms of current culture. I’m not so much interested in being stuck in history and the way things have always been as I am interested in what is best for our society now. After all, not that long ago, I wouldn’t have been able to vote.
“Will it make any difference to the relationship? Why?”
It will indeed. I say that partly because I am not one of those who thinks of it as just a piece of paper, but also because it has the more tangible benefits of being legally recognized as married with access to your spouse’s health insurance and the right to make life and death decisions when a spouse is unable etc.
“Men and women bring different viewpoints and parenting techniques to a relationship.”
Ah yes. I keep hearing about these different things, but no one can say just what they are, or exactly how they apply to parenting.
Of course there are gender stereotypes and generalizations. And many of them are apt. Women in general behave in certain ways and men behave in certain other ways. But while these generalizations work, well, in general and when applied as averages to large populations, they don’t always work so well when applied to individuals.
What about a straight man who behaves and feels very unlike a man is supposed to and rather fits into the stereotypical mold of a woman in all but physical appearance? Is he less of a man? Is he a second mother rather than a father?
I’m also a big proponent of “it takes a village.” I do think that grandparents and aunts and uncles should be involved in a child’s life. There lies further opportunity to have role models of whatever gender is needed.
I can go on for pages and pages about why I think it is better for a child to have more than one parent living in the home. I can also go on about how I don’t think both parents working full time is a good idea because children shouldn’t be raised in daycare. I’ve been involved in several of these arguments though, and I have yet to have anyone offer a concrete reason why the parents should be of opposing gender other than “because men and women are biologically different.” I would appreciate hearing one, one of these days.
“And yes, I understand that people get married all the time, never intending to have children--my husband and I are prime examples. We are also prime examples of how the best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee.”
Then why, may I ask, did you get married if it wasn’t for the purpose of having children? Why do you expect others who can’t have children wouldn’t want to get married for the same reason as you did? And since there are many same sex couples out there who do want children and are currently raising children…
” What we are being asked to do is to redefine marriage for everyone…”
It won’t make my marriage any different. How will it affect yours?
Your views are valid, of course. It is whether you have a right to enforce them that is in question.
The US has separation of church and state. This is intended to keep the state from controlling the church and to allow people to worship as they please. It also means though that our laws should not be based solely on religion but rather to protect citizen’s basic rights, the security of the country, and to maintain order.
You are free to worship as you please, to try to convert people as you wish and to share your views, to speak as you please, etc. But while it seems perfectly fair that you should be able to try to convince people that they should behave differently and avoid sin, it seems unfair that you should have the power of the state at your back to enforce what basically is a religious matter.
Also, it is primarily out of emotion and deep pain that people react as they do. I just have to think for a minute how much I love my husband and how it would have felt if someone had told me that our relationship wasn’t real by their views and so I couldn’t be allowed to marry him, and I can begin to understand.