November 13th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I do owe Starfox a little bit of fairness. He wasn’t saying that I would be against interracial marriage because I was against gay marriage. He was saying that I shouldn’t be against gay marriage because I wasn’t against interracial marriage.
I really think this issue would be over if first, California and other states had just gone for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage, and second, if the courts had let the legislatures handle it. Alas, the courts decided to write law. Gavin Newsom and same-sex proponents wanted the right to change the definition of a word and, perhaps more importantly, showed more hate for their opponents than was ever displayed by the Mormons, Saddleback Church, or Delta Township church in Lansing. The Bash Back group seems to be the Westboro Baptist Church of the Left.
The sexual morality horse is out of the barn. Even if 100% of gay civil unions ended up in legal dissolution, it doesn’t come close to the half of U.S. marriages ending in divorce. We have our own house to clean up. Call it specks and logs, if you will. Oops, there’s that Bible again.
As long as there are no discrimination laws that impinge on the free speech rights of pastors and my responsibility as a parent to instill right and wrong in my children, I’m actually quite open to the civil union debate. Just don’t call it marriage.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Dan:
I couldn’t agree with you more. I think civil unions are reasonable, just don’t call it marriage. My wife’s brother is gay, and while I don’t especially aprove of his lifestyle, I’m happy for him that he is in a committed loving relationship, and I think it’s a crime that he and his partner can’t share benefits or take part in each othere’s healthcare decision making processes in the event of a medical emergency, even though thats what they’ve requested. I’m worried that inn the event of some healthcare emergency, my inlaws would be called on to do it, and they wouldn’t even concider his wishes, or recognize his partner. By the way, how many PDU’s or CEU’s does Ohio require? I’m a partner in a small CE Firm in Missouri, and I’m always curious to know what other states require.
Eric Ramer
November 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
@Eric Ramer: Ohio currently requires 15 hours worth of Continuing Education Units, but I was told today there may be other requirements coming soon.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Hmm, you know, this whole civil union vs marriage thing, in addition to being silly semantics, also seems like another thinly veiled discrimination.
It’s a WORD. You may attach special meaning to it, but are Muslims, Hindus, or even atheists that live in a monogamous, heterosexual, union not “married”? What about those people who only get hitched by a justice of the peace and not a pastor?
Again, I don’t see how what anyone calls what is essentially a marriage what it is affects anyone else in the slightest. At best it’s semantics, and at worst it is an ugly form of bigotry.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
We’re just going to have to disagree here. I’ve already explained multiple times how it’s more than just a word. People of different races can have children naturally. Two people of the same sex can’t without major medical effort. There’s a clue here.
We are called to have a higher moral principle than the non-intervention of force. You and I are going to agree on 85%+ of issues, especially where government and taxes are concerned. In some very few instances though, nature, religion, or simply an urge to do good rise up and give us the opportunity to lessen a little bit of chaos.
The gay movement, history apparently beyond its cognizance, couldn’t let the frog warm up before it boiled. It asked for everything all at once. It couldn’t let Separate but Equal happen first. It couldn’t let society naturally change, and so it demanded that the courts write law. It has influence in many school districts, the media, and major denominations of the Church. It is probably going to get its way eventually. Unfortunately it has revealed just how radical it really is, even compared to today’s eroded societal norms. It can’t even handle leaving the traditional definition of marriage alone. Who is really the imposer here?