I would argue that the Right’s view could be turned against them. While it is true that most Americans polled do not support gay marriage, if an effective campaigner were to use religious context to explain why allowing gay marriage was in full keeping of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Christian concept. We are not talking about the right to buy an assault rifle, we are talking about a Constitutional amendment that strips the right to choose whom they wish to marry from American citizens. That is whole-hearted discrimination. There just is no other way to look at it.
Dobson’s assertion that “for thousands of years,” we have only allowed men and women to marry, thus it is the only correct path, is ludicrous. For thousands of years, it was perfectly permissible to burn someone at the stake for having differing religious views. For thousands of years some people were considered inferior, so others had the right to own them. Human beings as property. It was a painful transformation, but a necessary one, in which people let go of long-held beliefs so that we could be just that much closer to equality. The sooner we get over this first hurdle of religious objection, the better.
A sidepoint, only fundamentalist Christians have a problem with gay marriage. Several churches now offer to wed homosexuals in the eyes of the Lord. The Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop. This is really about a minority of people trying to impose their religious will on others through legislation. Thousands of years ago, church and state were one. The state had stake in what people believed religiously, and who married whom, because that determined taxes. Church and state are seperate in this country. That iwas one of our founding principles. The state should only worry about the tax implications and property rights, and leave the religious part up to the individuals’ churches.
It is in the rhetoric they use. “Sanctity of marriage,” has no other implication than moral and religious. So why is it the presidents argument of why homosexuals cannot enjoy equal protection under the law?
Posted by Nate on Jan 9, 2004 at 10:07 AM
Not to mention the fact that ‘for thousands of years’, people that would now be considered gay HAVE married (e.g., same-sex couples)! —yes, including the US!
Posted by Chriss on Mar 29, 2004 at 6:56 AM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
I would argue that the Right’s view could be turned against them. While it is true that most Americans polled do not support gay marriage, if an effective campaigner were to use religious context to explain why allowing gay marriage was in full keeping of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Christian concept. We are not talking about the right to buy an assault rifle, we are talking about a Constitutional amendment that strips the right to choose whom they wish to marry from American citizens. That is whole-hearted discrimination. There just is no other way to look at it.
Dobson’s assertion that “for thousands of years,” we have only allowed men and women to marry, thus it is the only correct path, is ludicrous. For thousands of years, it was perfectly permissible to burn someone at the stake for having differing religious views. For thousands of years some people were considered inferior, so others had the right to own them. Human beings as property. It was a painful transformation, but a necessary one, in which people let go of long-held beliefs so that we could be just that much closer to equality. The sooner we get over this first hurdle of religious objection, the better.
A sidepoint, only fundamentalist Christians have a problem with gay marriage. Several churches now offer to wed homosexuals in the eyes of the Lord. The Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop. This is really about a minority of people trying to impose their religious will on others through legislation. Thousands of years ago, church and state were one. The state had stake in what people believed religiously, and who married whom, because that determined taxes. Church and state are seperate in this country. That iwas one of our founding principles. The state should only worry about the tax implications and property rights, and leave the religious part up to the individuals’ churches.
It is in the rhetoric they use. “Sanctity of marriage,” has no other implication than moral and religious. So why is it the presidents argument of why homosexuals cannot enjoy equal protection under the law?
Posted by Nate on Jan 9, 2004 at 10:07 AM
Not to mention the fact that ‘for thousands of years’, people that would now be considered gay HAVE married (e.g., same-sex couples)! —yes, including the US!
Posted by Chriss on Mar 29, 2004 at 6:56 AM
Posting Security