2004-11-05 14:54![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldisciplineCan someone please explain, using whatever words and logic you have available, how the far right can reconcile the following two statements (made by Richard Viguerie in an interview published in Salon.com):
When government grows, individual liberties are reduced. We want a constitutional amendment on marriage.
Because to my eye, that reads like not only a direct abridgement of a personal liberty, it looks like they're adding a line to the Constitution.
When government grows, individual liberties are reduced. We want a constitutional amendment on marriage.
Because to my eye, that reads like not only a direct abridgement of a personal liberty, it looks like they're adding a line to the Constitution.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
Here's what they don't get - they don't understand that they have to live with people doing things they don't like - that's what freedom means. (Tolerance actually)
(no subject)
Ya know.....
"Marriage" is one of those iconic, historic things that has a fairly specific meaning to most people. People get very invested in such institutions and customs and that's why it's such a divisive issue. The people who want to ban gay marriage see marriage as a "particular thing" which involves, as one of its basic definitions, 1 man and 1 woman. The gay rights people want to redefine the definition and that is threatening to some people.
The reason this is more than a "it's none of your business" issue is because if gay marriage is legal then everyone is forced to recognize the union as legal and binding. An employer is forced to offer benefits to gay "spouses" no matter what his/her feeling on the issue, and that gets people worked up. I'm trying to think of a decent similar issue to make a point, but it's late on a Friday and I don't care that much :-)
Personally, the "Marriage is Love" bumpersticker annoys me. If that's true, then being in love should be enough. Marriage is a form of contract carrying specific legal ramifications and has little to do with love. Seems to me they could find a better sound-byte.
Re: Ya know.....
Then most people are desperately in need of some history lessons.
Re: Ya know.....
Re: Ya know.....
(She's cute but perverted. He's a well-spoken oaf. ;-)
Drew, Lysander. Lysander, Drew.
You kids have fun!
Re: Ya know.....
But hi, Jeff, pleased ta meetcha.
Re: Ya know.....
I don't want him to get the right idea. ;-)
Re: Ya know.....
Thanks! That's mah boy! 13 months today (that pic is at about 8 months.) Best toy I ever had.
And pleased ta meet you!
I'm one of those knee-jerk conservatives who realizes that there is often little justification for his opinions. If I were King, I'd say "no freakin' way" to gay marriage and that'd be it, mostly because it just seems "Wrong." Capital Wrong, like renaming a color changing east to west - just basicly incorrect, ya know? But then the brain kicks in and starts asking "why is it wrong?" That's when intellect starts sputtering like Bush in a presidential debate. There is a reason I wasn't on the debate team in high school. I feel in my bones that it is wrong, but I can't back it up coherently, so I guess I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I do hate hearing about it in the news - it seems like such a bull-shit decoy issue. The Republicans whipped up a big to-do about it just to sway the retarded bible-thumping south.
About all I'm good for is playing Devil's advocate, which I try to do regularly to all my bleeding heart liberal friends just to piss 'em off. I especially love to point out when they show decidedly non-liberal opinions. That REALLY pisses 'em off.
Re: Ya know.....
And I think your knee-jerk reaction is associated with the word "marriage", which is why I think civil unions are such a good idea. Marriage is a loaded word - it carries a lot of very specific semantic connotation and I think it's hard to shake off that connotation that's been there for at least a coupla hundred years. So I say leave marriage to the religions, and keep government from having anything to do with it.
Might I be permitted to friend you? I like to talk to conservatives who think...
Befriend me, darlin......
First child, Lysander? Neat name - what is it's origin?
Re: Befriend me, darlin......
Re: Ya know.....
Marriage is a household-sharing contract entered into by two people for the purpose of PROCREATION. The supposed difference, at least as far as the law is concerned, between a married couple and, say, roommates, is that the married couple is not only sharing a household but stipulating that they plan to procreate, with each other, and are making arrangements to provide for their offspring. A homosexual union is, by definition, not a procreative union without outside scientific intervention.
The solution: leave marriage to the breeders, and allow ANY two or more people who share a household and want the economic and legal benefits of marriage to enter into a civil union.
Re: Ya know.....
Re: Ya know.....
But I digress. Point is, I think civil unions are the way to go for any two (or more) consenting adults who share a household, with or without a romantic affiliation, and want to be able to pool finances, make emergency medical decisions for their partners, etc. I think that the federal goverment ought to either do away with marriage altogether and make all government-registered partnerships civil unions, with no restrictions as to the gender of the participants, or it ought to reserve the word "marriage" for those partnerships which are actively in the process of breeding or who intend to breed. That'll hush up the conservatives, since their precious word won't be defiled, and it will get non-traditional partnerships all the benefits they seek.
(no subject)