If, like me, you have friends who are incredibly hurt by what's happened in California, I have developed a few talking points to help foster understanding. I hope these are helpful:
Civil Rights
Everyone, regardless of race, gender, creed is allowed to marry – no one is withheld that right. It is the definition of what a marriage is that is in question, not who has the right to access it.
Church / State
I simply vote for what I believe is true, whether that is founded on religious beliefs or not, that is my moral obligation. I am not forcing my religious code on anyone by voting my conscience.
The Definition of Marriage
I believe that marriage = man + woman; that just as a man and a woman physically procreate, they socially marry. This belief can be held without any religious beliefs (though, in my case, all of my morals and values are founded on mine). My morals and values are not any less valid because they are religiously founded.
4 comments:
I agree that it does not matter where someone's beliefs stem from. What I have difficulty with is the discussion of whose religious beliefs get to "win". So, if I believe that marriage is defined as being a union between a man and a woman and another person believes (based on their own religion) that marriage is a union between two loving adults how do we decide whose belief trumps the other's? Usually, I hold that people get to practice their own religion as long as the practice of their religion is not physically harmful to another -- and in those cases the gov't gets to intercede to protect a person. Thanks so much for letting me share my thoughts here.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think the point you bring up is incredibly important and I don't have a glib response.
As I consider the point you've raised - ("who wins?") - I think that's also where fundamental beliefs can vary. My parents, for example, decided early in their marriage than when they disagreed that they would honor the most conservative opinion - so that neither of them would feel like they were giving up moral ground for the other. That was their philosophical approach to a reality on both small and large scales: compromising and yet retaining one's moral integrity.
And I suppose that's where democracy comes into play. Is it better to submit to democracy with the risk that sometimes the majority may be wrong or is it better to have judges / kings manage the final legislation according to their own judgement?
I don't know that there is a right answer to these questions. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts....
Thanks again,
Karren
Hi Karren & Lillybliss,
I have been following your blog & comments with interest, and would like to chime in, if I may. While voting for Prop 8 syncs with my faith, it is also a matter of rational choice as well, as it is for many who are both liberal and secular in outlook.
Marriage between a man and a woman, and the children that result from that union, has been the bedrock, not merely of our society, but of civilization for all of recorded history. There have, of course, been minor variations, but they have been short-lived and of little consequence. To put masses of research into a short sentence, experts in many fields of science and social science still hold to the model of the traditional nuclear family as the ideal for a child's welfare.
Of course, many single-parent families work out successfully. Similarly, biologically we are programmed to have two eyes, and many who have just one eye live successful lives. But we do not pretend that two eyes are not the ideal, even as we provide services and accommodation for those who are visually impaired.
But there are some areas in which we cannot accommodate visual impairment. My nephew, at age 16, discovered that his lack of peripheral vision in one eye makes it impossible to receive a driver's license--ever. He can never drive to school, drive to work, take a road trip by himself. It's hardly fair, is it, when he only has a slight impairment in just one eye, a choice he certainly did not make for himself? But it's not about him, it's about others, and providing a safe driving environment for them.
Likewise, marriage, as the French National Assembly recently observed, is not about two people who love each other, it's about children being raised in the best possible environment.
The bottom line is, centuries of common law have been built on this foundation of marriage between a man and a woman. When the definition of marriage is changed, the repercussions will be felt for centuries, and no one can foresee the ultimate results. Let us leave marriage as it is and make other accommodation for gay couples. Lesser laws can be tweaked to allow insurance and hospital visitation rights. But let us protect traditional marriage as the safest haven for upcoming generations.
another pov,
and much love,
Gayle
Gayle,
I absolutely loved your comments. I agree that we should all stive for the ideal. Marriage between a man and a woman is just common sense.
Post a Comment