WHO WILL STAND FOR MARRIAGE?: Washington Blade editorial
 
...The idea of using our lives as political footballs was originally the brainchild of Republicans, of course. First the president backed the Federal Marriage Amendment in a cynical ploy to energize his conservative base. Then the Republicans in the Senate rushed a vote on the measure to put moderate Democrats on the defensive just before their convention. ...

But on the whole, Republicans were cleverly outmaneuvered on the issue by Democrats, who devoted almost all their time during what was supposed to be a debate on marriage equality instead asking why the Senate was even discussing the question, since there are so many other issues out there of greater importance. ...

To the contrary, we were treated to a procession of Democrats who took to the podium to note for their record that they, too, believed marriage ought to be limited to that sacred union of a man and a woman. But not to worry--the Defense of Marriage Act would protect the country from the scourge of married homosexuals.

For some reason, these same Democrats, whose voices rose in indignation as they shamed their Republican colleagues for wanting to "write bigotry into the Constitution," never stopped to explain how it is that their beloved DOMA wasn't writing that same bigotry into federal law. ...

It’s hard to say when we will actually witness our full equality--including marriage equality--be defended in Congress by the men and women who are elected with our dollars and our votes. But it will certainly come later rather than sooner if we don’t actually ask it of them.

The Democrats certainly won Round 1 of the great gay marriage debate, but what about Round 2?

If "pro-gay" senators won't defend our equality or our dignity even when they have the votes in the bag, what can we expect when their arguments about the Defense of Marriage Act don’t work anymore? Because someday soon, DOMA will be struck down; or marriage laws will be opened up to gay couples in other states on their own. ...

We will not trick our way to equality, while everyone is looking the other way. The case for our freedom to marry is a strong one, and it’s way past time we started making it.
 
more

posted by Eve at 8:16 PM | link

1 Comments:

At 5/18/2007 11:52 AM,  Anonymous said...

The biggest problem with gay marriage (except for procreation which is correctible) is that typical marriage has never been clarified as to the equality of the individuals. If gay marriages emulate that inequality in heterosexual marriage, equality of human rights will not be achieved.

That marriage should be anything but equality between two humans is to promote the master/servant relationship by which ancient marriage was defined.

The State is not permitted to sanction marriages that are based upon the master/servant premise because they are inherently unequal relationships, and are therefore, discriminatory by nature.

Marriage cannot afford to be based upon master/servant relationship dynamics since it promotes violence and abuse by one authoritarian figure over another, the primary reason for divorce in modern marriages, and why many are not marrying. As a Constitutional requirement, if all citizens are equal, master/servant marriage cannot be licensed or promoted without violating those civil rights.

The gay marriage debate can only be good for society if the civil rights of marriage are exposed as to what is acceptable and what isn't. There is no reason to assume that gay marriage based upon master/servant relationships would provide any better protection to the individuals than it does currently to heterosexual marriage, and domestic violence and abuse is rampant in society for this reason. If religion is associated with unequal rights, gay marriage can only be provided under civil unions to protect those equal rights of citizenship.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home