Way to Go California!

A couple years ago I went to the CNN website and told it to send me an email alert whenever a story about same-sex marriages or transsexuals is published. Normally they make me frustrated, angry and upset. Every once in a while they have some good news, and today was one of those times. Here is the article:

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

"limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

Same-Topic Again, Same-Sex Marriages

I apologize that I keep revisiting this topic, but I was reading CNN.com again and it seems that almost every day there is an article about same-sex marriages. Today's article* is about a senator from Kansas who wants to question a judge on her views on same-sex marriages before letting her take part in any legalites involving the subject. Here is what he had to say:

"I am not opposed to her getting a vote, I would like her to come back through committee so she can testify what took place, factually ... her legal views on same-sex marriage and her ability and willingness to be impartial."
-- Sen. Sam Brownback

When I read that quote of his, I cannot help but look at the expression on his face in that picture and imagine he is so extremely vehement in his quest for an impartial trial that maybe he isn't really thinking clearly or fairly. He seems to be saying that a judge might not be impartial if she has attended a same-sex marriage. I'd tend to believe that in the interests of impartiality, that he should be looking to exclude any judge that hasn't attended a same-sex wedding.

Non-attendance simply does not even come close to being impartial. The plainly obvious question is, What if some judge that hasn't been to a same-sex wedding has simply refused an invitation because he or she, for whatever reason, already disagrees with it? Besides, if having the experience of attending a same-sex ceremony make's one biased, then where do you draw the line? At what point does a person's experiences negate their ability to make an honest decision? Do you exclude judges that may have gay or lesbian friends or family? Do you exlude those that have attended church? Do you exclude anyone who has seen Will & Grace?

In the purest interests of fairness, is it really best to trust anyone to pass judgment on anything without that person holding any kind of real world insight and experience in the topic? Information and experiences are what make us wise. The fact is, when it comes to making a fair judgement, if we eliminate any judge that may have relevant experiences, then the fact is, the final decision will just be less informed and less wise. I think that Sen. Brownback should trust that having many and varied experiences is not a hindrance to a person's ability to make fair and informed decisions, it is a requirement.


* http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/brownback.judge.ap/index.html

Same Sex = Different Treatment.

I am getting frustrated by the debate over same-sex marriages. My office-mate today was explaining to me that same-sex couples should not be allowed to get married because marriage is a religious ceremony, and therefore those that do not follow the religion should not be allowed to be wed. To him it was so cut and dry, so black and white. It was explained plain and simple that 'marriage' must be maintained with a traditional religious definition. I asked him why people who are not religious are then still allowed to get married and he said "...it's complicated". I was confused. On one hand the issue is simple but on the other hand it is complicated, and it all depends on what group of people you are talking about. I personally think that the issue isn't worth complicating with whatever rationalizations make it alright to discriminate. Any opposition to same-sex marriage in the defense of a religious definition is pointless because what is supposedly being fought for has already been lost.

The case against same-sex marriages, as regurgitated by my office-mate, is one that I have heard often. People want to maintain a religious definition. This argument is not believable because the definition has already changed without any outcry. Marriage is no longer governed by the church, it is governed by laws. In fact, marriage is recognized legally without requiring that religion of any kind be involved in any way. Even if the roots of marriage are based in religion*, it cannot be denied that marriage has become, first and foremost, a societal institution with religion as just a footnote in it's history.

Some who oppose same-sex marriages believe it is OK to allow a "Civil Union". Interestingly, this is exactly what marriage has become anyway. The religious aspects to marriage may be important to some people, but these days that doesn't count. After all, it seems to me that every person who has divorced a spouse has already broken an oath to god. If the church was still in charge then why is divorce allowed? Marriage has changed so much that the only thing that universally matters to society are the legalities.

However it may have originated, marriage is currently practiced by the nonreligious and religious alike. It spans religions, cultures, and societies. Marriage is a worldwide tradition and for any one group of people to claim it is unrealistic. It would make more sense for religious groups to assign the definition they want to preserve to a different term such as 'Christian Union', or 'Catholic Union'. This way marriage can stay a legal institution, and all the religions can set their own definitions. Once religion is separated from marriage, then any push for discrimination** will go with it.




To my religious friends,
I mean you no disrespect, and I mean you no criticism, and I in no way believe you to be discriminatory. I just feel that the argument I most often hear against same-sex marriage is completely discriminatory.


* I believe that the roots of marriage belong in our biology. Many species of animals are at least somewhat monogamous by nature, and given that humans are simply another form of animal life it isn't hard to believe that humans are the same way... somewhat monogamous by nature.

** Banning same-sex marriage is discrimination. If people wanted to ban interracial marriages we would clearly see this as discrimination, yet such a marriage used to be considered immoral and unnatural. We know this to be wrong now, but at the time it was considered gospel. In fact it has been less than 40 years since a Virginia judge upheld an interracial marriage ban stating god's intention to separate the races. Luckily the decision was overturned by the supreme court, who had these wise words to say:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia )