I'm not too big on getting behind a cause because I'm not so sure my beliefs are right. What I am sure of, is that the freedom to decide what is right for one's self has been bought with a great price and makes
I do however understand that there are some things worth fighting for. And despite various extremes in the beliefs of what is "right" or "wrong," I have to stand on the basic rule of humanity: Treat others how you want to be treated. When any issue comes up, I ask myself one question, "would this position victimize anyone?"
Now I have to define victim here because I don't want there to be any confusion. A victim is someone who has been harmed by someone or something else through no choice or consequence of their own doing. For the sake of this post, I am focusing on victims of other people's action or inaction rather than victims of circumstance, accident, disease or natural disaster.
Take defining gay marriage for example. I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and have decided it is more about personal beliefs than civil rights and both positions create victims. It's a beast anyway you look at it and victimizes no matter how you define marriage. Both sides would impose one personal belief on everyone... and THAT, I am pretty confident, creates victims. For that reason, I am against both sides. My current position is that marriage should remain a religious institution and has no place in government, schools or the workplace. Neither does sexual orientation for that matter.
I have a feeling that we haven't seen the end to this debate.
Now, I'm not as much of an all or nothing kind of gal as I used to be and have discovered that some issues really do have varying degrees of possibilities when it comes to taking a stand. But once a position is proposed as an amendment or an act of congress, it is an all or nothing kind of thing. You either accept all laws that come with it or you reject them all. And that choice may create a clear victim or victims. But I'm tired now and must provide an example of this in part 2.
Edited for clarification:
To be continued...
6 comments:
I like how you lay this out to think about victims and human suffering.
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, and have a very hard time understanding how other people are victimized by someone else's marriage. I actually would love to understand that point of view better, since I do know that they believe they are going to be victims. I honestly struggle to see how allowing people to get married means that another person has to agree with everything that happens in that marriage -- people are still free to have their own opinions about behavior and what they believe in. There are marriages that I would not support all of the actions in, especially in cases of domestic violence.
I also know that up until 1967 my husband and I could not have been legally married in all states because we are an inter racial couple. I am very grateful that even though there are still people out there that think that we should not be married, that the government protects are right to marry.
With the passing of Prop 8 in my state, I see the victims of the marriage ban clearly. They are people who are married who are very anxious about the future of their marriage, they are people who walk around feeling strange around people nowadays knowing that most people do not support their marriage and their life style. They are sad, they are angry, they are hurt. At that point all I know is that they are human beings who deserve compassion and equality and that separate will never be equal.
Thanks so much for your comment. I was really hoping you would take the time to respond with something respectful and meaningful, and you did not disappoint.
You identified the the obvious victim status of gay people who are denied the recognition of being married even though they are by all intents and purposes. I get that and that is why I am opposed to Marriage amendment. However, defining marriage to include homosexual couples would seem to include everyone on the surface, but it doesn't. After a little research on how it has effected other laws in states that have adopted that definition, I can see that it opens the doors to violating religious liberties with government support.
Those who have religious rights to believe that the gay behavior is against god's commandments have been bullied into defining the most sacred of their religious ordinances to include homosexual couples. Some have even been required to perform gay marriages even when their religious doctrine clearly opposes it. This has happened to many groups and churches under threat of losing their tax exemption status which would inevitable bankrupt any church. Just look at the current situation with the Mormon's on the matter.
But it's not just churches, others have been denied the right to "opt out" of public education curriculum that address issues of homosexual behavior and marriage under threat of child abuse or neglect as in the David Parker Lawsuit in Lexington Mass.
I support gay rights and religious rights, and neither one should trump the other. But I really don't think marriage act is about rights, if it were just about rights, then churches and individual religious beliefs wouldn't be threatened by it. It's about having one set of beliefs about marriage defined by law and enforced by government.
That is why I oppose both positions on defining marriage legally. Religious beliefs about families and marriage should be defined by each individual couple and their god and NOT by popular vote or government.
Ahhhh Sierra! You have opened Pandora's box. :) I have a constant internal struggle over this issue. At first i was all for yes on 8... and to be honest, without giving it much thought. But now, I struggle. I agree in that it feels like if you live in America you should sure as hell get to marry whoever you want. To be denied that right...I can not imagine. I would certainly not feel free. And isn't that what America is? Land of the free? I sympathize in that aspect.
But I fear from other instances that it would have a snow ball affect and soon infringe on my rights to religious freedom and beliefs. As you mentioned about gay marriages being forced in churches because they are not allowed to discriminate. I cannot imagine if the government tried to enforce gay marriages in the place I consider most sacred...the temple. In fact, I am positive the temples would shut down before that would be allowed. And why is that fair that I (along with millions of others) would not be able to worship and serve as I choose? In fact, from what i have read...the LA temple has already temporarily shut down do to the "peaceful" protests outside the temple...with grafiti, mean words being yelled, and hateful signs.
It really is a lose-lose situation and I fear it brings out the ugliest on both "sides". All of which is something I can not tolerate no matter who it comes from. I believe God created us all and loves us all... inspite of color, sexuality, or religious belief.
However, one thing I DO respect is democracy. And the people of California have spoken. 52% said they wanted yes on 8. And this is the SECOND time this law has been presented and has PASSED. Just as I have respected when the country voted in Pres. Elect Obama....I too expect that same respect from others. Obama was not my personal vote, but i can respect that the people have spoken. Would it be fair if somehow that was over turned and the government said, yes you all voted, but we feel you voted wrong...so now McCain is really your president? Heck NO! If prop 8 is overturned...I do not feel that is what being a part of a democracy is. and it would make me think that we really have no say or control in how this country is ran afterall. And that in turn could well lead into a decline of what this great country stands for.
I see your point Tiff. Democracy has to stand for something. But I'm not so sure that defining marriage should be on the voting block because it is so closely tied to religion and personal beliefs.
Democracy is about laws and order and isn't a place to define values or morals. I feel marriage is not an institution that needs to be defined by popular vote or government to maintain order. In fact, it has been recently demonstrated to disrupt order.
How would you fix it to where it's could be a win-win for democracy and all?
I don't know Sierra. If I did know...I probably would have been a politician myself. :) God Bless the USA...we need it!
I was against Prop 8 and I am a strong supporter of rights for gay couples. It pains me to think of a gay partner not having rights such as shared healthcare, tax breaks, or input on the care of a loved one. These are domestic partner issues that some states have addressed, but not all and not clearly.
I understand that it was the church that created the institution of marriage, and frankly it was government that screwed it up by calling domestic partnership marriage.
Whatever you call it, gay people should have government rights to care for one another in the same way that heterosexual couples can.
Post a Comment