Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:10:57
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by 10derHeart on February 8, 2006, at 18:33:40
Ok.... calmed down a bit after writing my representatives.
Here's what I meant:
I don't find that the sanctity of christian marriages means very much when so many -- half of them are tossed aside. If it is such a sacred act, why do they fail so readily. And there are undoubtedly many which don't end in divorce that are extremely unhealthy, experiencing spousal abuse, etc.
If those are the values being defended, why are the ones trying to defend it doing so by attacking other committed relationships? Wouldn't a better preservation of marriage be to educate the adherents of the christian faiths to make better choices of life partners and stronger commitments?
How does two people of the same sex getting married to each other in any way threaten the sanctity of a christian marriage? There are only two possible motives for the christian right to wish to deny the right to marry to the LGBT community:
1. As I said, to impose their religious beliefs on a country. It was legal in many other societies prior to the christian takeover for two people of the same sex to take on the role of husband and wife. These came to be known as savages.
2. To stamp out a way of life that they do not agree with. Perhaps from fear. Maybe they are afraid that if their (already) gay children see that some people can live without burrying who they really are, they might choose to do so. I don't know.
As far as filthy rags, I'm talking about the cavalier attitude that so many people have toward marriage. It's not taken as a commitment, either to the parties involved, or to the God or Goddess or Judge who solemnized those vows. In religious terms, it has become a throw-away sacrament.
I'm NOT saying that a marriage between committed people that endures is a filthy rag, but that the sacrament is lessened in esteem by the cavalier attitude with which people dismiss and discard it. Certainly the sacrament will not be brought into discrace by people of the same sex celebrating a lifelong commitment in the eyes of their God / Goddess / judge.
In any event, for the religious right to say that their rules come from love is being disingenuous at best. Even Jesus made it clear that His rules were for His followers. He did not try to bring into common legislation His rules for life. And nowhere do I find in His rules that people who were gay are evil. Most of the words translated as gay or homosexual in the bible did not even mean gay or homosexual in the original tongue. Many of the references were originally to temple prostitutes. I other cases, there are alternative interpretations which are just as likely.
My personal opinion is that religious rules should be held and practiced to the best extent possible by those who adhere to those rules. They should not be made into law. Doing so creates, if not a defacto religion, then at least a society that behaves as one. That's something I don't want a part of.
If a church wishes to preach, proslytize, publish books, hang banners, whatever, that's fine with me. I don't mind hearing their views. I was a christian, and have deep and abiding respect for the Bible as a historical, spiritual and practical document. I just don't want Leviticus to become the law of the land. Especially fundamentalist interpretations of it.
Prohibiting people who love each other, and are ready to commit for life, but happen to be LGBT, to do so solely on the grounds of religion, fear, or hatred is simply wrong.
I fear this ammendment because I'm transgendered. It is quite possible that with this ammendment I would be prohibited from marrying ANYBODY. Someone could argue from either side... birth sex, present sex, whatever. It's happened in different states different ways. Inheritance has been tossed out because one way or another the marriage wasn't legal.
There's a personal stake in this for sure. The things I've said though, aren't simply reactionary. It's the truth that I'm living.
Again, I'm not a christian hater, or a Christ hater, or a Bible hater. What I am vehemently opposed to is the legislation of christian morals, especially where they interfere with civil liberty.
I'm a pagan. I don't propose creating a legal basis for handfastings. (A trial marriage for a year and a day). Doing so would certainly reduce the divorce rate, but that's not my agenda. I just want the legal authority to visit my spouse when they are dying. I want the legal authority to share my life with the person whom I choose, regardless of their sex. I want the legal right to not have my will contested because I chose to live my life with someone that a church decided was the wrong sex. I want to rest in the knowledge that if I have children and I die, that they will be able to live with the person that I married, rather than taken by family or court because my partner was gay. I want the legal authority to occupy the same hotel room as my partner in whatever state I travel to.
Are these unreasonable requests? The things mentioned above are rights that are denied to the GLBT community on a daily basis simply because they are not able to have a legal marriage in this country.
Are we asking too much?
I don't mind hearing arguments. I don't mind debate. In the end though, I don't want "me" legislated out of existence. I don't want being "me" to be a crime. I don't want my love for another human being to be declared invalid or a crime. That's where the definition of marriage ammendments are truly heading.
--Dee
poster:deirdrehbrt
thread:607584
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/607695.html