Gay marriage goes down in flames again, what is new…

November 7, 2008 · Posted in Political Issues, Politics, Religion, Social Change, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about, Topic Blogs · 3 Comments 

Oh goodie – I’m in the mood for an editorial now.  This issue as far as I am concerned is a waste of the state politicians time and our money.  As you know, the California government just amended their constitution and banned gay marriage with the passing of Prop 8.    This was after thousands of gay couples consecrated their civil unions in the state over the last year. 

Whoa – cool down your socially charged engines for a second.  When I say waste, I don’t mean the issue of gay couples marrying is a waste, rather the constant legislative debates and law changes is a waste.  Your nostrils flared a little bit didn’t they?  Allow me to spout off on how utterly confused I am…

OK, gay marriage runs deep into the moral, religious, personal, and political values of those who either oppose or defend it.  I know this and you know this.  I tend to ride the viewpoint fence because I’m not gay, but I can empathize with those couples who are directly impacted by the constant flip flop of decisions.   In fact, like others, I know some same sex couples. 

Lifestyle choice or biological pre-disposition, I don’t know which is fact or fiction – frankly I don’t care.  What I do care about is how the issue is becoming a merry-go-round process which drains the state governments of their ability to interpret the law, enforce it, pose it to the voters, and finally uphold their individual state constitutions as they are written…or re-written.   

The concept of a civil union has been in the books for a long time, it’s called a domestic partnership, or common-law marriage.   But, the government does not officially recognize a ”same sex” common-law marriage or what the media refers to as the “gay civil union.”  (It’s nothing more than “shacking up” with the same sex)  It’s an incredibly ambiguious interpretation left to the states and that’s where the fun begins.

The blanket definition of marriage makes no specific inference that it’s strictly a union of a man and a woman, in fact, it actually contains a small blurb about a same sex relationship.  I’m rather confident that same sex relationship references were probably added within the last decade or two, just a hunch.  (Noah Webster, he may be an old school lexicographer however this guy has been stirring the pot since the 1840’s, what a maverick.)  I could be over analyzing this…but where does the “traditional” definition really come from?  The marriage tribunal of course.

Oh yeah – there is also a document called the Universal Declaration of Human rights (apparently this document was spearheaded by Lord Dark Helmet) and it states that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.  (You’ll notice in Article 16 it does not actually state “men marrying women“)

The Proposition 8 proponents stated that “the vote would re-affirm the state’s traditional definition of marriage”.  Just for fun, I’m going to revert back to the original “traditional” definition of marriage in California, which was a statute written in 1850 and reads:  “No license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.”  Interesting.

What also seems ironic to me is when people take keen interest in a presidential candidate’s view on the subject.  Well, you should be more concerned with what your state thinks.  There is no formal federal stance, so essentially when canididates express their views on it, it’s a voter enticement statement.  They don’t have a powerful, political trident to appease one side or the other.  Obama’s view is actually pretty vague and for the most part supports the way it’s works now.  Again, the states hold the cards.  I’m very excited for the change that is about to sweep across the country, but sadly, it ain’t going to be in the arena of gay marriage for a long, long time.   Maybe I’ll be proved wrong and it can be put to bed.   

This is the quite the firepit I’ve jumped into which is accelerated by the parallel topics of raising kids, health insurance coverage, etc.   The positive spin is that it truly highlights how spirited, social change and those long, entrenched societal norms do not walk hand in hand.  There is now a much fuzzier line between what is and what has always been.  (Those are my final thoughts)

Tags: <, , , , , , , >