November 10, 2006

Counterintuitive At First Glance

I am pro-gay marriage.

I voted for the Virginia Marriage Constitutional Amendment.

Let me tell you why. I've explained this about four times over the last week, so I thought I'd put it out here and just point people here when the subject comes up.

First, I believe that the word "marriage" needs to be taken out of the argument. Leave "marriage" to those who become partners in a church, under the old rules. Gay couples and those who stand before a Justice of the Peace, etc. aren't technically "married", they have entered a civil union or some other term that will be coined or evolve into common usage. Same results, same standing in the eyes of the law, but by not officially calling it a marriage, you're taking away one of the hot buttons of the extreme members on both ends of the spectrum.

Now, as to voting the way I did... When the Virginia constitutional amendment passed, in a practical sense it accomplished nothing. Things are going to go along exactly as they always have, except that now it's in writing. Most importantly though, is that the amendment takes the resolution of the issue out of the hands of the judicial branch and places it squarely in the hands of the citizens of Virginia, where it belongs. Activist judges are being recognized as a growing concern with many people, and the passage of amendments like these are as much a check on the power of the bench as they are a statement against gay marriage.

That is *exactly* why I voted for it.

So now what? Well, as of this moment the name-calling must stop. If the amendment is to be modified or repealed, the only way will be to muster your logic and make persuasive arguments and convince people. Calling me an ignorant bigot does nothing to help your cause, it causes me to dismiss you as a childish idiot throwing a temper tantrum because I don't believe as you do.

Whining because you want it "right now" reinforces that perception.

The measure didn't pass by an overwhelming majority. If you want to change it, forget the martyr act and be reasonable and debate the issue and score your points. It won't happen overnight, but it won't happen at all if you don't change minds.

Posted by: Ted at 06:56 AM | category: Politics
Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I also am pro-gay marriage.

I did not vote for the marriage amendment for several reasons that don't even have to do with the GLBT community (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered). First a similar amendment has passed in other states and the results went far beyond what was expected. The amendments not only stopped gay-marriage, but it made it impossible for Single Straight Couples to get any sort of benefits of living together if they were unmarried. Some people just don't want to be married because of the religious aspects of it and would rather just live their life comfortably with someone they love, with out worrying about it- this is no longer possible. It used to be that a couple, straight or gay, could go to an lawyer who would know exactly what contracts to write up that would give the couple benefits like marriage, and now with this amendment who knows if these documents will hold because the ammendment says something along the lines of "Give rights similar to marriage".

So not only will the contracts not hold up in court, my personal hot spot is that now the choice of power of attorney is taken out of our hands.

Example: Lets assume, for some reason I was no longer talking to you and mom, at all; we had a big TV-show style fight and things were ruined beyond repair. Then lets assume further that I got into a car crash and was in a coma. Before this Amendments 1 I would have been able to pick Paul to be Power of attorney. Now, even though Paul is male and I'm female under Amendment 1 I can no longer do that because Power of Attorney is a default benefit of marriage. It is more likely that the hospital will have to leave me in a coma, ignoring Paul, and will try to find a blood relative (You or mom - and remember the scenario says we aren't getting along) to make my medical decisions, and or execute the funeral if I should die.

That is why I think it was a bad idea for this Amendment, Especially if you left out the gay-marriage part. The amendment should of stopped after the first line: Marriage is between man and a woman. It is the rest of it that I hate because it is trying to put principally religious values (marriage is the only way to go) on to us.

My friend, who is lesbian, got in a car crash and the hospital would not except her partner as next of kin. Because of this they would let her partner take her home, but they wouldn't give her pain meds because the Partner was not approved or some such, to care for her since there was no blood relation.

Posted by: Mookie at November 10, 2006 08:08 AM (MeBho)

2 I agree with Ted and voted the same way.
Mookie, I get your point, but I don’t see how somebody does not want to get married because of religious aspects. As far as I understand it, and I may be wrong, you don’t have to get married in church. Are ceremonies at the justice of peace religious? So I don’t buy the “we just want to live together” thing. When I got married, and that was in Germany, I did not go to church. I went to the courthouse and there was nothing religious about it.
While I have no problem with gay and lesbian couples wanting to show the same commitment, I have a problem, like Ted said, with judges making decisions because they feel like they can. Sorry.

Posted by: Blogeline at November 10, 2006 10:29 AM (YMz4J)

3 You want to see what happens when the people aren't allowed to decide?

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/11/10/infriggingcredible.php

Posted by: Ted at November 10, 2006 11:30 AM (+OVgL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0143, elapsed 0.1522 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.1439 seconds, 190 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.