![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gay Rights
Monday, 6 April 2009 15:49I applaud the recent gains for this cause in Iowa and in Vermont. This is a wheel that needs to be greased and the sooner the better. Why?
Because it is not in our interests as a free people to have the State determine who can and cannot marry and to whom.
The opposition to the rights of people who happen to be gay to marry each other or anyone, whether it be of their own "gender" or some other (with that definition becoming more arcane every time some new way of transcending it's only apparent binarity is found) is being opposed purely on religious grounds, and that is not right in an egalitarian society.
What's worse is that NOT ALL RELIGIONS oppose this. ONLY CERTAIN SECTS OF CERTAIN RELIGIONS oppose this, and not everyone within those sects agrees either. This is not a basic universal ethic, like say, murder or theft. To impose these restrictions unilaterally based on the objections (on religious grounds) of only certain adherents of certain religious sects is a CLEAR Constitutional problem for our government to implement, and the Supreme Court of Iowa agrees 100% and unanimously on this point.
We need to raise our collective voices about this issue and make a fuss and argue some damn politics at family gatherings and make some people uncomfortable about this until it's fixed.
It's not right and it must be fixed!
And I can't stress this enough: acknowledging this right isn't about the ~10% of the population who is gay *imposing* their lifestyle on the rest of us. NOBODY is demanding that you be gay if you're not.
And if someone chooses to be gay, and marries someone of their own gender, well,
SO WHAT?
I mean it. SO WHAT?
Look, as it stands right now, if some innocent young lady happens, thru some improbable circumstance, to fall in love with a thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, she can marry that thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, as long that thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist is not another woman. Her family may object. Her religious affiliates my object. Her friends may object. Her therapist, priest, or mail carrier, may all voice their opinions on the naive trust she places in her beating heart. But if she chooses to enter into this bond with this thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, she can do so as a free citizen with NO RESTRAINT FROM THE STATE because the STATE HAS NO COMPELLING INTEREST IN WHO MARRIES WHOM.
So right now, the worst members of our society can marry each other or our sons and daughters and the State has no right to interfere. And other than whatever pressure we can apply to an ill-formed choice thru family, friends, and community, at the end of the day, we can not stop it either. Why? Because that is their right and the State has no reason to curtail that.
As a matter of fact, should someone marry an *incarcerated* thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, many of our jurisdictions make some allowance for that marriage to be solemnified, consumated, and subsequently accommodated.
So the worst miscreants in our society have the right to marry, and the State accommodates that right and doesn't interfere.
But if those people happen to be the same gender and DON'T happen to be thieves, murderers, rapists, or terrorists, the state has an INTEREST and can forbid them to marry. HUH?
Two fine upstanding citizens, whose worst crimes may be the occasional parking ticket have LESS right to marry than a convicted felon?
Depending on jurisdiction, a convicted felon has fewer rights than your average citizen, and usually has to *earn* them back if they can be had back at all. Most people agree that this is how it should be.
What have gay people done to deserve LESS respect than that, and NO chance to earn the right to marry that is NEVER taken from a citizen no matter WHAT he or she may have done?
*I* think that there's something fundamentally wrong with this picture.
Do you?
If not, then, why?
You may disapprove, but where is the STATE's compelling interest in denying this right?
Because it is not in our interests as a free people to have the State determine who can and cannot marry and to whom.
The opposition to the rights of people who happen to be gay to marry each other or anyone, whether it be of their own "gender" or some other (with that definition becoming more arcane every time some new way of transcending it's only apparent binarity is found) is being opposed purely on religious grounds, and that is not right in an egalitarian society.
What's worse is that NOT ALL RELIGIONS oppose this. ONLY CERTAIN SECTS OF CERTAIN RELIGIONS oppose this, and not everyone within those sects agrees either. This is not a basic universal ethic, like say, murder or theft. To impose these restrictions unilaterally based on the objections (on religious grounds) of only certain adherents of certain religious sects is a CLEAR Constitutional problem for our government to implement, and the Supreme Court of Iowa agrees 100% and unanimously on this point.
We need to raise our collective voices about this issue and make a fuss and argue some damn politics at family gatherings and make some people uncomfortable about this until it's fixed.
It's not right and it must be fixed!
And I can't stress this enough: acknowledging this right isn't about the ~10% of the population who is gay *imposing* their lifestyle on the rest of us. NOBODY is demanding that you be gay if you're not.
And if someone chooses to be gay, and marries someone of their own gender, well,
SO WHAT?
I mean it. SO WHAT?
Look, as it stands right now, if some innocent young lady happens, thru some improbable circumstance, to fall in love with a thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, she can marry that thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, as long that thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist is not another woman. Her family may object. Her religious affiliates my object. Her friends may object. Her therapist, priest, or mail carrier, may all voice their opinions on the naive trust she places in her beating heart. But if she chooses to enter into this bond with this thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, she can do so as a free citizen with NO RESTRAINT FROM THE STATE because the STATE HAS NO COMPELLING INTEREST IN WHO MARRIES WHOM.
So right now, the worst members of our society can marry each other or our sons and daughters and the State has no right to interfere. And other than whatever pressure we can apply to an ill-formed choice thru family, friends, and community, at the end of the day, we can not stop it either. Why? Because that is their right and the State has no reason to curtail that.
As a matter of fact, should someone marry an *incarcerated* thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist, many of our jurisdictions make some allowance for that marriage to be solemnified, consumated, and subsequently accommodated.
So the worst miscreants in our society have the right to marry, and the State accommodates that right and doesn't interfere.
But if those people happen to be the same gender and DON'T happen to be thieves, murderers, rapists, or terrorists, the state has an INTEREST and can forbid them to marry. HUH?
Two fine upstanding citizens, whose worst crimes may be the occasional parking ticket have LESS right to marry than a convicted felon?
Depending on jurisdiction, a convicted felon has fewer rights than your average citizen, and usually has to *earn* them back if they can be had back at all. Most people agree that this is how it should be.
What have gay people done to deserve LESS respect than that, and NO chance to earn the right to marry that is NEVER taken from a citizen no matter WHAT he or she may have done?
*I* think that there's something fundamentally wrong with this picture.
Do you?
If not, then, why?
You may disapprove, but where is the STATE's compelling interest in denying this right?
