druucifer Wrote:
Sen. Ol Vodka Tits LooGAR Wrote:
Gay Marriage is an issue I don't give a single solitary fuck about. If you think that banning gay marriage will strengthen your marriage, I feel sorry for your spouse. If you think that forcing gay marriage down people's throats through court decisions is a good idea, I feel sorry for you, your worldview, and you political aspirations.
(and, just fyi, I voted AGAINST the ban in Georgia)
it's not great politics, but i think the courts have been at their best when they shove unpopular policies down people's throats when those policies protect minority rights (and i'm talking desegregation, rights for criminal defendants, that kind of thing). we probably would have seen similar support for "segregation amendments" if the supreme court hadn't spoken decisively on the issue. this is exactly what the courts are supposed to do: step in to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.
it's wrong for a gay couple to pay a single dollar more in taxes because they can't get marital tax breaks. it's wrong for the partner of a gay person not to inherit their partner's property if they die without a will. just because being denied these rights isn't as sickening as jim crow doesn't make it any more acceptable.
i understand that there is sincere religious and cultural opposition to gay marriage. lots of people had equally sincere religious opposition to ending slavery, interracial marriage, and women's rights. but the right of religious people not to be offended has to give way to the right of gay couples to enjoy the same protections as straight couples. these people have the right to be bigots but they don't have the right to write that bigotry into law.
I guess I have a question regardiung this comparison to slavery and women's rights. Besides religious and cultural convictions on either side, it is a proven fact that women are women genetically and are certainly "born" that way. It is proven that black people are "born" black genetically. However, it is my understanding that there is not definitive proof that homosexuals are in fact born homosexual. I am not arguing that there is not significant evidence to support that claim, but I think it is not a disprovable item that homosexuals are born genetically homosexual. I think this adds to the continuous resurfacing of this issue.
Also, in the same way that it is not as horrifying as slavery, gay marriage is also not reacted against in anywhere NEAR the same way that anti-slavery legislation was. It's just arguing.
And, I guess the other thing is that you say it is "wrong" for homosexual couples to be denied tax breaks, etc. How do you mean "wrong"? Are you talking morally? Because then that's a whole other issue. If you are going to say it is wrong in a moral sense to deny a "minority" these things, then you have to understand that the most prominent adverse opinions to gay marriage is that homosexuality is an immoral thing. Therefore it is eventually going to be a majority view of the morality of homosexuality that prevails. Right now, it seems that the majority (of those deciding law)would subtly or outspokenly agree that homosexuality is immoral. Eventually, maybe that will change. But, I don't think the court is there to make sure that the majority doesn't oppress the minority. It is there to make sure that no oppression takes place at all. Some would argue then that denying homosexual marriage is not an oppression because it is not a basic human right. Marriage, in a legal and civil sense, is a privelege offered by this government.
This is all what it seems like to me. The issue is muddy in terms of legislators and such and seems to lead to the inability to come to a clear and concise resolution.
