ftlaudft
06-26-2013, 07:38 AM
We're waiting for the Supreme Court to hand down some very important decisions, and I wonder to myself what I would decide if I had my druthers. So much time, so much energy, so many hopes and dreams are tied up to these decisions. But I feel somehow that I would have done things a little differently.
I start with the definition of marriage and the basic concept of a man, a woman and a baby. That's the biological reality I've grown up with. Put them together, ring a wedding bell, play Wagner's Wedding March, and that's what marriage has always meant to me.
When we define something, we have to consider the general term and the specific types of it. For instant, take the word home. A teepee can be a home. An igloo can be a home. But a teepee is not an igloo. An igloo is not a teepee.
A man is a man. A wman is a woman. Both are persons. Both deserve legal protections as persons. But a man is not a woman. A woman is not a man. And the biological union of man plus woman is a biological something that can't be duplicated.
Does a man have the right to partner sexually with another man? Does a woman have the right to partner with another woman? I certainly hope so and I have worked with many other people most of my life to guarantee their legal and full protection under the law.
But I believe in a secular society and a secular government. Though I go to church every Sunday, I don't want any member of my congregation deciding any sexual union issues for me. I don't want the members or leaders of any other religion, any other church, mosque or temple deciding them for me either. I don't want them to have any say in any way in my life, in my home, in my government. I want the country run as a secular state with complete and absolute divisiion of church and state.
What I would have opted for is the system of civil unions for ALL couples, straight or gay. And nothing else. The churches, mosques and temples should be free to decide how they want their members to couple - or not couple - and they can call their unions marriages or anything they theologically want. On their side of the fence. But the option for a civil union should be available to all: man plus woman; man plus man; woman plus woman.
The government should consider unions, civil unions for all, and define the benefits and responsibilities that come from a civil union. All should have the same rights for income tax purposes, hospital visits, etc. Many of us will have our own ideas as to what a union means, and we will bring our values from our own churches, mosques and temples. But we will not impose them. In a secular state we would have only civil unions.
I hear the wedding bells. Am I ready to march into the City Hall and get hitched to someone? Personally, I'm not ready yet. Many of us settle for affairs and adventures, some serious, some not. I don't think marriage is for everybody. I don't think a civil union is something even a majority of us gays may really want.
What will the Court decide today? What do you think about it? Will your ideas change? I wonder.
I start with the definition of marriage and the basic concept of a man, a woman and a baby. That's the biological reality I've grown up with. Put them together, ring a wedding bell, play Wagner's Wedding March, and that's what marriage has always meant to me.
When we define something, we have to consider the general term and the specific types of it. For instant, take the word home. A teepee can be a home. An igloo can be a home. But a teepee is not an igloo. An igloo is not a teepee.
A man is a man. A wman is a woman. Both are persons. Both deserve legal protections as persons. But a man is not a woman. A woman is not a man. And the biological union of man plus woman is a biological something that can't be duplicated.
Does a man have the right to partner sexually with another man? Does a woman have the right to partner with another woman? I certainly hope so and I have worked with many other people most of my life to guarantee their legal and full protection under the law.
But I believe in a secular society and a secular government. Though I go to church every Sunday, I don't want any member of my congregation deciding any sexual union issues for me. I don't want the members or leaders of any other religion, any other church, mosque or temple deciding them for me either. I don't want them to have any say in any way in my life, in my home, in my government. I want the country run as a secular state with complete and absolute divisiion of church and state.
What I would have opted for is the system of civil unions for ALL couples, straight or gay. And nothing else. The churches, mosques and temples should be free to decide how they want their members to couple - or not couple - and they can call their unions marriages or anything they theologically want. On their side of the fence. But the option for a civil union should be available to all: man plus woman; man plus man; woman plus woman.
The government should consider unions, civil unions for all, and define the benefits and responsibilities that come from a civil union. All should have the same rights for income tax purposes, hospital visits, etc. Many of us will have our own ideas as to what a union means, and we will bring our values from our own churches, mosques and temples. But we will not impose them. In a secular state we would have only civil unions.
I hear the wedding bells. Am I ready to march into the City Hall and get hitched to someone? Personally, I'm not ready yet. Many of us settle for affairs and adventures, some serious, some not. I don't think marriage is for everybody. I don't think a civil union is something even a majority of us gays may really want.
What will the Court decide today? What do you think about it? Will your ideas change? I wonder.