" In every conceivable manner, the family is the link to the past, and the bridge to the future."
- Alex Haley, Author of "Roots".
" The family is the nucleus of civilization."
- Ariel and Will Durant, Historian and Writer.
While they don't clarify their definition of family, it's pretty clear what has sustained civilization for thousands of years and helped it progress.. And if we part from that course, the bridge to our future with be built on a foundation of quicksand... or some other mushy substance - Flubber?
7 comments:
No doubt that "family" (by which I take it you mean a husband and wife and possibly children) "has sustained civilization for thousands of years and helped it progress." But I don't think that point is really relevant to the question of whether gay couples should be afforded the legal benefits of marriage (whatever you want to call it).
If you rule out offering the legal sustenance to relationships that marriage brings, you're left with one of two thing. Are you suggesting that a gay man should marry a woman? Or not enter into any sustained relationship at all?
Most folks who feel strongly about this issue, as you do, have no constructive answer to the question. They'd rather pretend gay people don't exist. They do, even though they don't fit into the conservatives' too-rigid views of God's creation.
So the question becomes: What now?
I'll be short, because I'm at work. Of course gay people exist, and it should be recognized. A civil union is a legally binding agreement that would tie all the aspects needed to unify a gay couple - assets, etc. Many Conservatives wouldn't agree with that point, but I'm a little more biased in that respect.
This idea isn't something I made up, it's from a gay person who I am very close to. Hopefully , it could be viewed as a ( watch out..) compromise that would appease the gay community. Granted, we conservatives are not always strongest when we go the socail issues route, but there is a little wiggle room on this topic.
Mike - Am I understanding you to say you would support civil unions, just not "marriage"?
NVB - Yeah, I'd find that acceptable. I see it as an acceptable compromise between a couple in the eyes of the law, and the eyes of God. A little dramatic there, but that's pretty much it.
Amazing what a little communication can do. We are not, in fact, very far apart in our positions, if at all.
May I ask another question? Since the proposed state constitutional amendment would ban not just marriage, but civil unions as well, does that mean you will vote against it?
That's a tough one. Bills or Resolutions that are half right put us all in a bad spot. I get a lot of Democrat and Independent support because I tend to respect other people's feelings on personal issues. However, do I disrespect the sanctity of marriage by voting against it?
Honestly, I don't know if the passing of this will outlaw civil unions , or if it just for Columbia to gauge the voters feeling. If it has no direct legal effect, I think I would likely vote for the amendment. If it did, I'd have to think about it more.
Clearly the amendment WOULD outlaw civil unions. That's the overreaching that I've written about.
The first two sentences read:
"A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated."
The second sentence is designed to cover any kind of legal recognition or right.
So, in my mind, it boils down to this: The first sentence doesn't achieve anything because there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this state would ever recognize gay marriage. So it's prohibiting a non-event. And the second sentence achieves something you and I can't support, namely prohibiting the civil union-type rights.
So is there ANY reason (at least one of conscience) to vote "yes" on the amendment?
Post a Comment