?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Aerden
aerden
.::.::...... ..


September 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

Aerden [userpic]
Regarding Gay Marriage

There's a very interesting and well thought-out post in miseri's journal about gay marriage.

One of my brothers-in-law is gay and participated in what I consider to have been a marriage ceremoyny with his husband/partner. It was a religious ceremony--some variety of Lutheranism, I believe.

My feeling on the matter is that marriage is love--or at least, it should be. This is why I think all of these so-called defense of marriage proposals are ridiculous. Legislation like that does not, in my opinion, defend marriage; it defends the legal supremacy of heterosexuality, period.

So what are we saying--that heterosexuals have more of a right for their love to be recognized than homosexuals? To me, that's utter nonsense.

I agree that no religious faith should re required to recognize gay marriage if it doesn't want to; churches/religions are private entities. But I do think that the state should. Frankly, why should the state care what sex the couples it marries are? They're still going to pay taxes and hold down jobs. You can do that whether you're gay or not.

Comments

There's a 'state' you and I are voluntary members of that does, if you look carefully at the Lex Equitia de Familia.

The argument against homosexual marriages can only be defended within a religious context, therefore it is my opinion that the government, by continuing to deny rights to a certain portion of the population, is doing so in the name of religion(s). Which the government has no business doing. Not so long ago, many states barred inter-racial marriages, but they didn't base it in religion. If they had, I wonder, would it still be illegal for me and David to have married?

The other side of the government being involved in marriage at all is that single people get shafted, too. There are all kinds of tax breaks and financial benefits for married couples, which basically implies that you're far more valuable to the U.S. as a married person than as a single person. There's more discrimination present in the government legislation of marriage than just the gay rights question. Hopefully once people evaluate the inequality of civil rights in this matter, they will also realize that the entire body of legislation governing marriage in this country needs to be completely overhauled. :/

Frankly, why should the state care what sex the couples it marries are? They're still going to pay taxes and hold down jobs. You can do that whether you're gay or not.

Ah, but married couples have rights to tax-deductible benefits that domestic partnerships (to use the PC term, if you'll forgive me) do not have. You want to add your same-sex partner to your health coverage? Go right ahead (assuming your company/carrier allows it), but oh my! you'll get hit with a bit higher tax bracket at the end of the year than that married couple over there, thanks to imputed income.

*sigh* The government only cares about whatever lines its pockets. If they can squeeze a little extra tax money out of us, and get nice contributions from reactionary lobbyists... then this little hypocrisy will continue.