Here's the story in the San Francisco Chronicle, for those who haven't heard of it yet.Gay marriage up to Governator
No way. You're telling me that gay people are trying to get married? (Gasp!) Okay, so that's not my issue. Democracy is my issue.
California is one of the states that actually has in the wording of its state constitution that the term "marriage" describes a union between a man and a woman. That means that it has been voted as such, by the people, so that this is the way it will be. Here's an excerpt from the story:
Opponents have promised to go to court if the bill becomes law, saying it violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. They also say they will go to the polls next year with proposed constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage.
"What about Prop. 22? What about the 62 percent of Californians who supported it? What about their will?" asked Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia (Los Angeles County). "If this legislation doesn't subvert the will of the people, I don't know what does."
As sorry as I am to agree with anyone from southern California, Denny makes the key point here: How is it acceptable for elected officials to overturn what the people have already voted on? That is not democracy. I understand an elected official voting one way in the senate that his constituency doesn't agree with. He or she may feel that it is in the state's best interest to do so, despite what the voters say--and it is that official's prerogative, as an elected statesman. Gordon Smith, an LDS senator in Oregon, is a prime example of that. He constantly goes against the desires of his constituency and still gets re-elected--his constituency respects him. That's not my problem. If a state constitution says one thing and voters have struck down attempts at other interpretations (gay marriage advocates attempting to get around the "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing) through actual voting, then the elected officials should leave it at that.
But what if a representative thinks that the wrong choice has been made by the people? Should he/she just get comfortable with hands planted firmly between chair and cheeks? Not necessarily. Campaign! Lobby! Do whatever it is that you need to do to sway the voters! But don't try to sidestep the democratic process (much like San Francisco's mayor (among others) did a short time ago).
If the voice of the people one day comes to support gay marriage, I will accept it regardless of personal feelings. That is one of the ideals that our country is based on: the voice of the people. Demo- means "the people." (And if you look closely, you'll see "demo" inside the word democracy!)
Now I understand that the United States of America is not a true democracy. There are other countries in the world that are closer to a true democracy than the US is. We are a representative democracy, meaning we vote for people who vote for us. And if those people don't vote the way we like, we vote for others to take their place. But when a state has a voting process built in that allows the people to vote directly on issues regardless of the feelings of one elected official, that process should be respected. An elected official shouldn't try to go around the voice of the people by going to a higher authority, such as the Governor or Supreme Court Justices.
Okay, I apologize. I saw this and got agitated. I'll try not to let it happen again, but we both know I will fail.
Despite having studied politics in college and been around it my whole life, I consider my knowledge of government and the political process severely limited when compared to the collective knowledge of everyone else (imagine that). Please, if you have issues with what I've written, tell me! I'd love to hear what you have to say and force myself to think more deeply about this.
9 comments:
Well... I know that we're supposed to be talking about democracy here, but since I'm the first commenter, then I might unintentionally swing the conversation more towards gay marriage... Honestly, I don't know what to think about gay marriage. I mean, I guess religiously I oppose it because homosexuality is not okay, etc., etc. But on an individual level, I love my gay friends and I'd love them to have the same kind of happiness that straight people enjoy, and that includes committing to one individual and getting a bunch of gifts at wedding time. Seriously! So just because they're gay, that means that they need to buy all their OWN crap at Bed, Bath & Beyond? It's hardly fair.
I just don't know what to think about it... so I don't vote. That makes me a bad person.
I agree that gay couples (and all partnerships involving committed people such as companions of elderly or bedridden people, whatever) should have certain rights. They should be able to have health insurance, visiting rights in the hospital, etc. If people want to buy them presents when they set up housekeeping, I'm not opposed to that either. But I can't go as far as to say that they should be legally married. I just can't do that, especially considering what we're told in the Family Proclamation.
This was a much more difficult issue for me when I was in college and had several very close friends that were gay. I wanted so badly for them to have everything I had. Then I realized I was married to a total idiot freakshow who was cheating on me and probably giving me diseases. But I digress.
I guess what I'm saying is that I still want those things for my gay friends, even though we're not close any more. But time has helped me to see that we cannot equalize lifestyles that are not part of God's plan. Even though we love people very much. I hope there will be something better for them later on, to make up for the suffering now, because it is acute.
C: Not voting doesn't make you a bad person. Many other things contribute to that reputation. ;) I know how you feel, but I tend to lean more towards Daltongirl's analysis. Actual marriage should be treated as something sacred, and homosexual marriage is going against that. However, so is all of the divorce that runs rampant (we all know that divorce is often justified, that's not what I'm saying). Whether through gay marriage or infidelity in heterosexual marriage, the family unit is losing its importance in this world.
SM: I did go to that seminar, and was again blown away at how that man knows how to deal with problems. My favorite was when he was asked about who he would vote for, President Bush or Senator Kerry. He said, "I've worked very closely with both of them, and it is my opinion that Senator Kerry is a very talented politician; but, President Bush is a better man." Anyway, I digress.
What I got out of what he said about gay marriage was that the answer, in his mind, might be civil unions. I've never heard him support gay marriage, exactly. I believe he does support civil unions though, so that homosexuals can have the rights that Cicada and Daltongirl have spoken about, without offending God by calling it "marriage." Maybe I misunderstood him, but I believe that's his position.
Yes, he wears green ties a lot. Yellow and Red too, but rarely blue. I wonder why.
I used to be against homosexual civil unions also, because I felt that if I don't support their lifestyle why should my tax dollars go to pay for their benefits. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that there are just about as many straight couples whose lifestyles I don't support either--because of infidelity, infidelity during separation, etc. Yet I pay taxes to give them benefits. Now I'm leaning more towards civil unions because it really does seem to be a common ground that will satisfy most. I don't actually believe that most gay couples really want actual marriage, just the benefits of such from society--to be recognized in the same way by society, not necessarily by God (we have no control over that anyway). This may be the solution.
If there's a chance that gay marriage could bring back polygamy, then I'm all for it.
Maybe I'll marry my fish while I'm at it.
Imagine a wonderful world where your kid's school teacher has a same-sex partner--a world where the bus driver holds hands with his husband on the bus every morning. People can do what they want behind closed doors, but I don't want any homosexuals with bands on their fingers nancing around my kids.
I'm going to go ahead and fight homosexual marriage because I don't want my kids to be homosexual, and I think that allowing homosexual marriage will increase the likely-hood that observers (my kids) will embrace active homosexuality.
HAHAHAHAHAHA---G.H., why does the gay bus driver not keep both hands on the wheel? Come on. Have you honestly ever seen a bus driver, gay or straight, bring his/her significant other on the bus in the morning?
I've decided that I agree with pretty much everything that I read here, esp. with Daltongirl, whose years have brought maturity. I'm still that college girl with gay friends and I'm still trying to figure out how to love and accept them when I also believe strongly what God has had to say about homosexuality. But I also agree with G.H. in that I think I would have a hard time sending my children to a school where a teacher and her wife accompany them on school outings, or where the gay bus driver puts my children in peril by not only showing them that "homosexuality is okay," but also by bringing him on the bus and holding his hand while both hands should be on the wheel.
GH--for what it's worth, I did have a school teacher who had a same-sex partner. And obviously, I have been deeply scarred by this experience. (Well, I might have been deeply scarred had I been one of the little chil'rens who had to report, towel-clad, to the coach while the coach's partner was there to prove that I had showered. But all of my shower-fresh moments were kept away from the prying eyes of any but my coach.)
And what--you would prefer that the homosexuals nance around your children with unbanded fingers?
Seriously, though, it's not like my teacher took us aside and urged us to support gay marriage or to dabble in lesbianism. It's called professionalism. My straight teachers didn't pull me aside and discuss sex with me on the sly, either. Despite some other issues I had with that particular teacher, my family and I are on great terms with her now.
Daltongirl--I like your thinking. I think civil union is a good idea.
C: Did you just call Daltongirl old?
It's okay. I AM old. But I have long hair, which makes me look younger. That's why I have long hair.
And I also agree that driving a bus with both hands is much safer. So leave your "friend" home, bus driver.
Not sure that any one observing a homosexual relationship would have a desire to become gay. Most of my friends who have a gay parent are determined to stay away from it, because they know how socially difficult it is. Perhaps it would actually be a deterrent. Except for the part where it may not be a lifestyle "choice."
First of all, why don't homosexually behaving people go get civil unions? Aren't those legal in many states? I don't believe this is a tax-break debate, is it?
I don't have a hatred for "gay" people, but an abhorrence for homosexual behavior.
I think the "recruiting-homosexuals" are a minority of the already itsy-bitsy minority group.
Would I rather have homosexuals not wearing wedding bands? The answer is definitely yes. The word that makes a difference for me is "institutionalization."
When the state authority says, "I pronounce you man and ... " whatever they decide they want said at the wedding ceremony, that will create a institutional, if not social, acceptance.
Institutionalizing the behavior is definitely a step in the wrong direction. When a state sanctions behavior, it has an amount moral inertia added to it. "Well, it's legal. There's nothing wrong or weird about it," people will say. With it's new legality, it's harder to push away from; harder to battle against. It becomes a legal option, it becomes a moral option, and it becomes a "legitimate" family option for everyone inside the system.
Perhaps some children are replused by the homosexual behavior of their parents. Children are also traumatized by the alcoholism, abuse, etc., performed by their parents. When I was a child, I saw adults as "the norm" and I was confused by major differences in adults' philosophies. I think we know that there is a pattern of behavior set by earlier generations for later generations. Abused children are more likely to abuse, right? Example is powerful. "Hey, they're gay, and they don't look totally miserable--why don't I try that life-style out?" Causation of lasting happiness is bnewildering for adults, much less kids.
Show love to the confused gays in giving freedom. Don't be convinced that sanctioning homosexual marriage is a show of love. Attemptting to show love to homosexuals by sanctioning homosexual behavior, which further perverts the social/government/religious institution of marriage, is a bad idea.
Post a Comment