This "easy to follow" graphic is about as tangled and confused as the "debate" over same sex marriage. What I like is that it shows just hot nutty the whole debate is.
Where do I stand? I think the whole thing will be a non-issue is about 20 years. Just think, 40 years ago "miscegenation" was a crime in the US but a non-issue today. Forty years ago preachers railed against this "unnatural" commingling of "blood". Today that view is quaint. I suspect the same will be true of same sex marriages in twenty years.
Personally I would be happy to see the term "marriage" reserved for religious ceremonies and "civil union" for state recognition of relationships. But it ends up that "civil union" is usually interpreted as a lesser status with restricted rights. That is no good in my mind. So I'm for "gay" marriage, i.e. the state recognition of full rights of a household composed two same sex adults.
My mother worked as a docent in a botanical garden run by a gay man who died of AIDS. His partner was unable to attend his deathbed because the parents didn't recognize the relationship. Similarly, the legal status of their "commingled" domestic arrangement was not recognized by the state, so the parents -- who had been distant and condemning of his sexual orientation -- got control of his assets and were able to completely cut out his life partner. What a bitter, horrible end. There was no justice here, no love. I find it appalling that most of the hate raised about this issue comes from the Christian community which proclaims it has a God of "Love" amd whose founder outraged the Pharisees because he invited all to his table: sinners, tax gatherers, everyone. But today's follower of this religion don't seem to read their own founding documents. Strange.
No comments:
Post a Comment