Monday, June 22, 2009

A comment on 'The Correct Response'

I attempted to answer wdporter's comment on the post and got stymied by the comment, here is my comment:

Eventually, I return.

Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.

As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.

In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.

Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.

Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.

Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.

Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.

But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!

But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!

Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.

And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...

My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.

As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....

How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...

(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with, majority rule...didn't we...)

No comments: