Let's jump off all "blasphemous." "It's a God Thing" cannot be known. You may have faith that it's a God thing. You may believe that it's a God thing. You may have been taught it's a God thing. Your bones may ring with human certainty that it's a God thing. But you don't know that it's a God thing. For all you truly know, God may be sadly shaking her head wondering why her favorite experiment keeps eating its own.
Your oil and water analogy as to church and state is correct, and should stand as example in American jurisprudence. This was the point I first made that compelled you to write. Religion has no place (dog) in the question (fight) of civil rights granted the citizenry. The California Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage," even if such couples are granted the right to enter into "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" based on the California State Constitution's guarantee of the "right to marry" and its guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.
This is not to say that you are compelled to believe in same-sex marriage. It does not say that you are bound to believe that it is not a sin. You are free to believe that same-sex marriage does not constitute "marriage." What it does say is that all citizens are guaranteed civil rights one in accordance with the next, without discrimination based on sex, race, age, sexual-orientation, height, weight, hair color, eye color, or any other superficial difference between human beings. How brightly your view of the institution of marriage shines in comparison to other institutions is immaterial. Civil institutions do not exist for only your benefit, but for the benefit of each as to the next.
These base rights you mention are what the California Supreme Court addressed in its ruling. They are naming marriage as a base right that is constitutionally available to all, without regard to political or religious beliefs, and that right is equally protected under the law.
I appreciate and respect your arguing from the perspective of religious belief. However, nothing in the California Supreme Court's ruling disavows your belief. As Wanda Sykes said, if you do not believe in same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex. Nonetheless, you cannot constitutionally abridge another, who may not believe as you, access to the base right that is called in civil discourse, "marriage."
You use a basketball analogy that doesn't quite ring true. No, you cannot and should not lower the hoop, but neither can you or should you exclude short people who can ball. If basketball equals marriage, then short people are homosexuals who have every right to play, provided they play by the rules, correct? By your analogy, you are naming basketball (marriage) a tall people (heterosexual) only game, when in fact short people (homosexuals) can indeed play despite your tall people (heterosexual) rule. You're prejudicially discounting short people from a game they are able to play, based on a rule that does not consider ability. You feel me?
As to the recipe analogy, both pancakes and waffles have flour to give them substance, eggs to bind, and milk to enrich. Consider if you will that if flour (human beings) is bound by eggs (love and commitment) to which if you can add varying amounts of milk (kids, mortgage, 401Ks), you still end up with the same cholesterol loaded ass-fattener (marriage) be it pancakes or waffles.
You are free to believe that marriage is sanctified by God. Hell, I believe that marriage is a sanctity of God. I just don't believe that God would disapprove of or deny any of her flock the blessing of true love and commitment and family based on who they love and smiles on such unions because she wants us to be happy. And frankly, my beliefs are just as valuable as yours. B'leedat.
No comments:
Post a Comment