Thursday, November 13, 2008
While I agree and support that all couples regardless of gender should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities, privileges etc, I do not think it is the gubments job to define or otherwise rule on what marriage is. In my opinion gubment should recognize civil unions for all and mandate that all entities that confer benefits on couples not discriminate based on the gender of the couples. That is what people can and will agree on. But when you have some people up there continuing to call it 'marriage' and equating it with civil rights, it alienates a whole group of people.
When people start equating the civil rights movement and treatment of minorities/indigenous peoples with the right to marry, they totally lose my vote. Last I checked the definition of marriage did not stop someone from voting, obtaining a job, moved to a reservation, lynched, or legally prevented from living their lives.
Personally I think the No on 8 people got caught sleeping. They lost the political battle due to arrogance, poor planning, and poor PR. And if the No on 8 people keep throwing in my face that this is like the civil rights movement, I may just totally ignore them. Have them give a compelling argument akin to my second paragraph and I will agree with them and vote to support the cause.
Just my 02.
2 comments:
OK, I hear what you are saying but I do feel there is an overlap to the civil rights movement...
In the 60's there were many different levels to the civil rights movement. Right to vote, right to no segregation, right to multi-racial marriages, right to not be lynched, etc. While some of these rights are much more profound (i.e. lynching vs. multi-racial marriage) they still fall under the umbrella of the "civil rights movement". One of the most revered acts in the movement was Rosa Parks stand. This really seems trivial compared to the lynching, but really was symbolic of the overall struggle.
Now look at prop. 8. Taken on its own, it appears to be trivial compared to people being killed for being gay (Lawrence King, Moses Cannon, etc.). But is it not part of the same struggle for equal rights? Couldn't you equate this to placement of a race on the bus? I mean, they were allowed to ride the bus after all...
Just my 2 cents...
Thanks for much for commenting and I hear what you are saying and have to disagree with it being part of the same struggle. As I wrote in my earlier post, it is not governments roll to define marriage. At least in my opinion. Government should be in the business of making sure individuals get equal protection, equal access and equal treatment regardless.
This whole 'marriage' thing is divisive because it treads on what people think they know about marriage. If we say marriage is a contract between people and is a compact that grants privileges, rights and responsibilities in overall society then the wording does not matter. Marriage, civil union, relationship contract, etc. As long as all societal entities treat each the same then the word marriage is irrelevant.
Also, my point is the No on 8 groups should find a way to bring people together and strangely enough, most No on 8 press and info I saw was very Us vs. Them.
The Rosa Parks moment was years in the making. It was a singular act designed, yes designed to illustrate vis a vie one individual the absurdity and duality that was american society. Specifically that we are not all created or treated equal.
In my mind there needs to be that watershed moment that illustrates very clearly why extending the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of marriage to any and all committed couples is not only the right thing to do but is also good for society as a whole.
more than my 2 cents. ;-)
Post a Comment