DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
|
Rep. Lankford being an incredible cretin to the side, I do think there's a difference between a civil rights issue and a religious rights issue or even a human rights issue.
There's also a difference between tolerance and being forced to abdicate one's own beliefs.
Let me try to do this:
Marriage is (or was, until government decided they could make a buck) a religious rite. Checking the first amendment, the government can't tell religions what to teach. So, the right of homosexuals to marry rests solely in the purview of the churches.
I could be wrong but, I believe there are only three, recognized, long-established (non Jim Jones) religions that sanction gay marriage. That means that the road isn't completely road-blocked (although, it would be nice if some more churches would get their heads out of their asses).
The government has already partially weasled their way into this religious ritual (as well as extreme unction and baptism). So, the only way to "fix" this, civilly is to either kick government's ass back out of religion and have no marriages "endorsed" (tax breaks, insurance, survivor rules) by the government. Since fornication and cohabitation aren't against the law, this is reasonable.
Of course, we know the government isn't about to give up control, once they have it. So, what's more likely is that we petition for government to enforce the 14th amendment. It's already there. Let's use it.
It's really not a "civil rights" issue. If you were to tell me that gay people were getting paid less than straight people because they're gay, I'd say it was a civil rights issue. If they were forced to use a different bathroom because they're gay (You know they're bathroom predators. Right?), I would say it's a civil rights issue.
No, so far, I think it's a religious rights issue.
Now, here's the piece de la résistance: it's a human rights issue at the very heart of the matter. By what fucking authority does any government think they have the power to regulate who or how we love? Let's make it really simple and say: "First amendment; freedom of association".
But, here's another side to the coin. I mentioned "tolerance"?
Somewhere along the line the meaning of the word has become bastardized. "Tolerating" something doesn't mean I need to embrace it. It means I need to "allow" it to exist without trying to eradicate it.
You see, in this country, if we so choose, we have the right to hate any individual or any group that we want to. I don't recommend hate as a way of life but we have the right to indulge ourselves if we choose. You can't mandate how people think. I don't have to be "maid of honor" at a gay wedding to be "tolerant"; I have to walk by the church and not toss Malotov cocktails, as I pass. I can shake my head and mumble under my breath about how wrong I think it is. That's my right.
So, if you're saying you want equal treatment, I am all for it. If you're saying you want to regulate a love for the issue in the hearts of all Americans, call me when you wake up.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|
Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
~FR~
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread