![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoSo after more than two years on LJ and well over a hundred long term friends, someone I barely know decides to ban me from his journal simply because he disagrees with my rather mild politics. It's amazing how prejudiced and opinionated people can be, I guess. Oddly enough, he still lists me as a friend so he may read this. No matter to me. I did nothing wrong, other than present a few unbiased facts.
So, if I'm going to be hung for simple words, I might as well be hung for the real truth: Even though I don't particularly favor the idea of same sex marriages, I do agree that if the legal privileges of marriage are to be available to some, they should be available to all. It serves society and the government not one bit to be spending civil resources to enforce the views of certain religions, even if those religions are in the majority. We have separation of church and state, folks. It's a basic tenet of our society and law. The churches can say and do what they will about same sex marriage. But the state does not have that freedom. It is required by the Constitution to grant the same protections and privileges to all citizens equally. That means regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Yes, I also think barring gays from the military services is unconstitutional, even though I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would choose to serve the US military as it is presently structured and operated.
The wording of this amendment that Bush has just supported is mean-spirited, twisted, and devious. It will deny recognition not only to same sex "marriage" but will deny the awarding of any benefits normally conferred upon those who are in a married state to same sex couples, even if their civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever you should choose to call it is in fact sanctioned and recognized by the state in which they live. This goes way beyond the authority of the federal government, and is a violation of the tenth amendment as far as I can see. They will have to repeal or amend the tenth amendment, and probably the fourteenth as well.
Can this amendment pass and be ratified? Alas, I suspect it can. With a Congress and Executive that is willing to try to exempt laws from judicial review, in direct contravention of the Constitution, and both apparently believing they can actually do so, passage seems likely if congresscritters think there will be political advantage to passing it. The US voter population appears to be almost equally divided on the subject of same sex marriage, but also seems to be easily stampeded if scary enough arguments are presented. One is reminded of the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed ratification by the states after a silly campaign opposing it claimed that rest rooms would have to become unisex and boys and girls would have to share common locker rooms and showers in school gymnasiums. We will see the same sort of scare tactics in support of this ridiculous amendment, folks.
I say if "marriage" is in need of legal "defense" then something is already critically wrong with the institution and it's time for a complete overhaul, rather than knee-jerk resistance to any social change.
So, if I'm going to be hung for simple words, I might as well be hung for the real truth: Even though I don't particularly favor the idea of same sex marriages, I do agree that if the legal privileges of marriage are to be available to some, they should be available to all. It serves society and the government not one bit to be spending civil resources to enforce the views of certain religions, even if those religions are in the majority. We have separation of church and state, folks. It's a basic tenet of our society and law. The churches can say and do what they will about same sex marriage. But the state does not have that freedom. It is required by the Constitution to grant the same protections and privileges to all citizens equally. That means regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Yes, I also think barring gays from the military services is unconstitutional, even though I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would choose to serve the US military as it is presently structured and operated.
The wording of this amendment that Bush has just supported is mean-spirited, twisted, and devious. It will deny recognition not only to same sex "marriage" but will deny the awarding of any benefits normally conferred upon those who are in a married state to same sex couples, even if their civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever you should choose to call it is in fact sanctioned and recognized by the state in which they live. This goes way beyond the authority of the federal government, and is a violation of the tenth amendment as far as I can see. They will have to repeal or amend the tenth amendment, and probably the fourteenth as well.
Can this amendment pass and be ratified? Alas, I suspect it can. With a Congress and Executive that is willing to try to exempt laws from judicial review, in direct contravention of the Constitution, and both apparently believing they can actually do so, passage seems likely if congresscritters think there will be political advantage to passing it. The US voter population appears to be almost equally divided on the subject of same sex marriage, but also seems to be easily stampeded if scary enough arguments are presented. One is reminded of the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed ratification by the states after a silly campaign opposing it claimed that rest rooms would have to become unisex and boys and girls would have to share common locker rooms and showers in school gymnasiums. We will see the same sort of scare tactics in support of this ridiculous amendment, folks.
I say if "marriage" is in need of legal "defense" then something is already critically wrong with the institution and it's time for a complete overhaul, rather than knee-jerk resistance to any social change.
