February 21, 2004 6:08 AM

What, really, is the problem here? The feeder of those who are different? The fear that someone might define "family" differently? Or just fear in general?

Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

Top state Dems criticize S.F. mayor. TIGHTROPE: Politicians try not to anger voters -- 50% of Californians oppose same-sex unions

S.F. sues over legality of same-sex marriages: City asks judge to rule that state's ban is discriminatory, unconstitutional

WEDDING PERKS: Married couples save on inheritance, insurance

I cannot get my head around the fact that people are challenging the legality of gay marriages in California. Other than the obvious bigotry, I can't think why anyone would waste so much energy on something that does not have any impact on their own lives. Actually, I can. It's pathetic for these people to hide behind the legality debate when it is clear that for the most part, their objections are founded in religion. And right there is why I do not subscribe to religion; the good parts of religion are just common decency and ethics. The bad parts are the negativity and passionate moral activism. What threat is there in gay marriage?

- Andy Yates

Heavens to Mergatroid, Ethel. Those damn homo-sex-u-als are still trying to promulgate THE GAY AGENDA. It just ain't right- men marrying men and women marrying women and all. How would you know how to put what where??

Somehow, there is a part of me that just cannot understand why this issue is so controversial. What is so wrong with two people committing to spend their lives together? How is it NOT in the interest of the state to promote stable relationships- in whatever flavor they might come in? Hey, it's not as if heterosexual marriages have been the standard-bearers for success and stability, eh? In a world were roughly 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why shouldn't we allow gays and lesbians their shot at happiness and stability- not to mention the legal benefits that follow?

No, marrying someone of the same gender might not be something you or I would do, but do we really have the right to decide and define what sort of happiness is acceptable? America was founded by people who fled their homeland to escape the sort of intolerance and insensitivity that many in this day and age are quite willing to resort to. Apparently, we have learned nothing of value from our own history.

If you are opposed to the idea of gay marriage, I have a very simple solution for you- don't marry one. That is your right and perogative as an American citizen. If you feel that your opinion/philosophy/religious beliefs give you the right to determine how someone else is able to lead their lives, I would respectfully disagree. NONE of us have the right or the responsibility to force our narrow version of acceptable moral behavior on another person. It's a simple matter of fairness.

Of course, I know that there are those of you out there who will immediately take it upon yourself to shoot my argument down. That is your right, but I would submit that you are wasting your breath. Instead of determining how I am wrong, why not try to figure out how to make this country a more welcoming and accepting place to live- for people of all races, creeds, colors- and sexual orientations? What, really, is so wrong about trying to be happy and make a home and a future with the one you love?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on February 21, 2004 6:08 AM.

A little Photoshop goes a long way.... was the previous entry in this blog.

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearing Milk Bone underwear is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12