Equal rights
Bush is troubled by something. That's good to know. I was beginning to wonder when all this lying was going to get to him, being the good, compassionate man he is.
Wait...that article is talking about homosexuals getting married. Ah yes. He's troubled by the stance that conservatives have been taking. He wants homosexuals to be able to know the pure joy of getting married.
Wait...that's not it either. He's troubled because homosexuals are getting married. Well, to tell you the truth, I'm troubled, too. I'm troubled that they are having to rush through their marriages. I'm troubled that they are not able to relish the moment. Marriage is something one should be able to spend months planning, and the wedding day should last...well...an entire day. I'm troubled that there are people who are trying to spoil the happiness that these people who are getting married must be experiencing. I'm troubled that a judge is likely going to strip these people of their marriages. (Side note: I don't blame the judge, I blame the law, and those who are filing suit.) I'm troubled that Bush is willing to strip an entire group of people of their rights, just because he thinks they are icky and immoral. There are lots of heterosexual people who are immoral, but they still get to keep their rights, because they were immoral with someone of the opposite sex.
(My use of the word "icky" in this context is not original. I credit Lean Left for being the first that I saw use "icky" when speaking of the Right's impression of homosexuality.)
Incidentally, John Kerry does not escape my wrath right now. He needs to quit waffling on this one. Being for civil unions but against marriage is a little stupid, since civil unions are, in effect, marriages without the title.
In writing the above about Kerry, it occurred to me that I should clarify my stance on marriage rights for homosexuals. To do that, I need to tell you my stance on marriage as an institution, period. I think that the government should not have a say on marriage. Marriage is, in effect, a religious institution (yes, the religious right does actually have a point there). Whether or not two (or more, if you're old school splinter Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) people can get married should be left to the religious institutions. Find a church that will hitch you, and get hitched. What should happen on the government side is this: for tax and legal purposes, any two people should be able to enter into a contract (a civil union, if you will). These two people would have all the rights now afforded to married persons. It would not matter if they lived together or not, whether they were gay or straight, or anything else. The only restriction placed on the union is that there could only be two people in the contract.
The above is not an original idea. I've seen similar ideas floated around elsewhere, though I can't remember where. If I ever see something similar to this, I will link to it.
Robert
randomliberal@email.com
Wait...that article is talking about homosexuals getting married. Ah yes. He's troubled by the stance that conservatives have been taking. He wants homosexuals to be able to know the pure joy of getting married.
Wait...that's not it either. He's troubled because homosexuals are getting married. Well, to tell you the truth, I'm troubled, too. I'm troubled that they are having to rush through their marriages. I'm troubled that they are not able to relish the moment. Marriage is something one should be able to spend months planning, and the wedding day should last...well...an entire day. I'm troubled that there are people who are trying to spoil the happiness that these people who are getting married must be experiencing. I'm troubled that a judge is likely going to strip these people of their marriages. (Side note: I don't blame the judge, I blame the law, and those who are filing suit.) I'm troubled that Bush is willing to strip an entire group of people of their rights, just because he thinks they are icky and immoral. There are lots of heterosexual people who are immoral, but they still get to keep their rights, because they were immoral with someone of the opposite sex.
(My use of the word "icky" in this context is not original. I credit Lean Left for being the first that I saw use "icky" when speaking of the Right's impression of homosexuality.)
Incidentally, John Kerry does not escape my wrath right now. He needs to quit waffling on this one. Being for civil unions but against marriage is a little stupid, since civil unions are, in effect, marriages without the title.
In writing the above about Kerry, it occurred to me that I should clarify my stance on marriage rights for homosexuals. To do that, I need to tell you my stance on marriage as an institution, period. I think that the government should not have a say on marriage. Marriage is, in effect, a religious institution (yes, the religious right does actually have a point there). Whether or not two (or more, if you're old school splinter Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) people can get married should be left to the religious institutions. Find a church that will hitch you, and get hitched. What should happen on the government side is this: for tax and legal purposes, any two people should be able to enter into a contract (a civil union, if you will). These two people would have all the rights now afforded to married persons. It would not matter if they lived together or not, whether they were gay or straight, or anything else. The only restriction placed on the union is that there could only be two people in the contract.
The above is not an original idea. I've seen similar ideas floated around elsewhere, though I can't remember where. If I ever see something similar to this, I will link to it.
Robert
randomliberal@email.com
posted at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home