Sep
21
Question One
Filed Under Non-Fiction, Politics, Social Commentary, Writing | 2 Comments
Vote yes on question one and lets continue to discriminate against those not exactly like us! In fact, I think that next year we should work towards revoking other rights given to those dirty minorities that we didn’t get a chance to vote on! Slavery here we come! You Somalis didn’t think that we welcomed you into this state out of friendship did you? No silly, we were just planning on revoking your privilege to be a human being after lulling you into a false sense of security.
/sarcasm
All kidding aside, I’m growing weary of this discussion in general. It’s been a raging debate in the legislature and on the ballot in this state for years. “Protect Maine Equality”! “Stand for Marriage Maine”! Bullshit. Call it what it is, this is about the right to legally discriminate against someone else because of their lack of commonality.
I heard a commercial on the radio tonight while driving home from work that really bothered me. One of their points was that the legislature passed a law that we weren’t even allowed to vote on. The nerve of those democratically elected representatives! Why how dare they take the faith bestowed upon them by the general populace and act in our best interests by protecting a minority!
So, with my frustration and disdain for ignorant close minded ideals bubbling at the boiling point I thought it was time to vent a little. I made a visit to the Stand for Marriage Maine website and here are some quick observations.
(In no particular order and the bold formatting is their emphasis. I’ve used italics inside quotes to separate their remarks from mine.)
“Maine citizens from all walks of life and backgrounds, whether religious or not, agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Some Maine citizens do I’m sure but as a member of our society’s most hated minority I can honestly say that I’ve never met a fellow non-religious person that could care in the least about protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman – only religious people think this is a problem.
“Every culture in the world understands that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
In many cultures they understand that marriage is between a man and as many twelve year old girls as he can afford. We should strive to emulate as many foreign cultures as possible. How about those that state that wives can be beaten or children can be sold into slavery?
“Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage whether we like it or not. Maine will have abandoned its commitment to promote monogamous marriage as a foundation of society and an important policy to enrich Maine families. The interests of children in ensuring healthy marriages will be eliminated.”
This is the foundation of society that I always thought enriched Maine families:
“Section 6-A. Discrimination against persons prohibited. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof.”
That comes direct from the Maine State Constitution.
“States where gay marriage has become legal are allowing teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. (California Education Code §51890)
If the gay marriage law takes effect, teachers could have little choice but to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage and parents could lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage. (Parker vs. Hurley)
We should not accept a legislative decision that results in a wholesale abandonment of Maine policy that promotes marriage for the benefit of families and children, or that will result in public school teachers teaching our kids that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage.
That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs.”
I believe that the public schools teach our children a variety of things that should be left as an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. Good parents would do this anyway of course and worry less about the chance that a teacher might introduce their children to those subjects instead of Mommy while watching a rerun of Will and Grace. There are lots of things that our schools shouldn’t be teaching our children but I personally worry more about the outright lies being taught such as Columbus discovering America than I am that our children are being taught about the realities of the world that we live in. I’m a reasonable guy though. If corrupting our children is really the issue here then I’m willing to make it a law that we can’t talk about marriage in school if we can make marriage legal for all. Deal?
“If Question 1 fails and LD 1020 is allowed to take effect, marriage will be redefined to be only about any two consenting adults without regard to gender. Its focus would be only about what the adults want for themselves, and not what is best for society as a whole. The roles of husbands and wives would become irrelevant. Maine’s marriage laws will no longer promote what is best for children.”
This seems to indicate how important procreation is. What if a man and a woman that can’t have children want to get married? What if a man and a woman get married and choose not to have children?
“Examples of the legal conflicts that will be created include:
“The refusal of a religious school to offer housing to married same sex couples could be sued or forced to stop offering housing to all married couples;”
Is this truly an issue? I thought religious schools were already discriminating against gays for employment. Correct me if I’m wrong.
“A religious organization that refuses to hire or retain an employee in a same sex relationship could be sued;”
Same as above. I was under the impression that we were already discriminating against sexual orientation anyway so I don’t see how this would change anything.
“A religious individual who owns a business such as a photographer, florist or inn keeper who refuses to participate in a same sex wedding could be sued or fined;”
I know that we can still discriminate against “long haired hippy freaks” and refuse service to those without shirt or shoes so I fail to see how this would be different.
“A religious-based social service organization could lose government funding for refusing to provide same-sex couples with spousal benefits; and”
I’d like to take a moment to point out that this is already against the law in Portland. The Catholic Charities of Maine and the Red Cross gave the City of Portland a very unceremonious middle finger along with a message of where they could shove their funding. I haven’t heard of any lawsuits over that although now you know why I refuse to support the United Way (since they continue to support these organizations).
“Professionals like doctors, psychologists, counselors and others who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage can have their licenses revoked.”
As they should. Are you serious? A doctor that refuses to treat a patient because of their sexual orientation or marital affiliation should lose their license. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could honestly produce such an individual in the first place so I think this point is moot anyway.
“These examples are illustrative only. The legal scholars warn that the volume of litigation, “will be immense.”
Can you imagine how many lawyers must have been lining up to tell Lincoln about the volume of litigation? How about the glut of litigation that Woodrow Wilson was warned about before he urged Congress to pass the 19th Amendment ending womens sufferage?
“Marriage is a pillar of society and should be protected from distortion by politicians and gay marriage activists who want to redefine it to suit their objectives.”
Objectives? Freedom? Equality?
“The defeat of the People’s Veto would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults.”
Ever been divorced? Banning divorce would do far more for removing the contractual aspect of a marriage than banning gay marriage would!
Defeat of the People’s Veto will mean that gay marriage activists will have been able to redefine marriage for all of society, even for those people who have deep objections to it.”
Yes that’s right. Your marriage will now somehow be different. You will be required to wear a dress on some evenings and your wife will be required to wear boots and shave the back of her head.
“It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage.
And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage.”
Oh this is about the kids again? What about having children out of wedlock? How about many children out of wedlock? While on drugs? Alcohol? Smoking? Jobless? Homeless? These things are far more important to the welfare of children than Bert and Ernie’s marital status.
What this really comes down to is basic discrimination and a N.I.M.B.Y. attitude. A gay couple lives down the street from me. I occasionally see them jogging together and sometimes even holding hands. This doesn’t bother me and I hope that they live a long and happy life together. On the other hand, there’s also a family that lives near me that absolutely fills their yard with the most god-awful and massive lawn “decorations” all year long. This affects the tranquility and peace of my neighborhood, brings down property values and is simply tacky as all hell. Can we have a referendum about that?
Comments
2 Comments so far
You know what I find interesting (and this only just occurred to me today)? It’s that these same people who are arguing so vehemently against marriage equality are the very same people who railed against the anti-discrimination measure (related to housing, jobs, loans, etc.) that passed several years ago. They felt at the time that the fabric of society would be ripped to shreds and that lawsuits would abound. Neither of which occurred. Go figure. It’s about bigotry and hatred of anything that falls outside of their religious doctrine and anybody who attempts to argue differently just solidifies this point in my humble opinion.
Oops, my point actually was that none of these people who are so adamantly opposed have mentioned the previous measure in any way shape or form. So, obviously this thing that they abhorred so much, is no longer an issue. So…STFU.