Ruling
This post may get a reaction from people, but I can't let the California ruling on gay marriage go by without a comment, or two, or more.
1. Why should our fear of (and I mean fear of offending, or fear of litigation from) 2% of the population make us redefine the meaning of a tradition, a relationship, a word, a sacrament (for the Catholics), a covenant (for the Reformed), a legal contract, a reality that is thousands of years old?
2. What does a civil union or domestic partnership not do that marriage does for a gay couple?
3. Why do we think marriage is essentially about love? It was only about love in the last 300 years, by that I mean, who one married was about other considerations than just affection, and affection was often an afterthought. Marriage is an institution for the good of all, not just two people in the marriage. This argument flies in the face of, no, it's incomprehensible to us today. We marry because we love someone, right? Uh, not traditionally.
4. Furthermore, why do we run our government, not just our lives, on emotion rather than principle? I recently heard something about the government being "compassionate?" Where is it written that government should be compassionate? Just, yes. Compassionate is another matter. Do we want the government to be compassionate so that we don't have to be individually? Is this why liberals give less money to charities than conservatives?
5. So, yes, I disagree with the ruling, think it's pathetic, actually. This is a test of free speech. Others have argued these points more persuasively, and with more evidence, than I have here.
1. Why should our fear of (and I mean fear of offending, or fear of litigation from) 2% of the population make us redefine the meaning of a tradition, a relationship, a word, a sacrament (for the Catholics), a covenant (for the Reformed), a legal contract, a reality that is thousands of years old?
2. What does a civil union or domestic partnership not do that marriage does for a gay couple?
3. Why do we think marriage is essentially about love? It was only about love in the last 300 years, by that I mean, who one married was about other considerations than just affection, and affection was often an afterthought. Marriage is an institution for the good of all, not just two people in the marriage. This argument flies in the face of, no, it's incomprehensible to us today. We marry because we love someone, right? Uh, not traditionally.
4. Furthermore, why do we run our government, not just our lives, on emotion rather than principle? I recently heard something about the government being "compassionate?" Where is it written that government should be compassionate? Just, yes. Compassionate is another matter. Do we want the government to be compassionate so that we don't have to be individually? Is this why liberals give less money to charities than conservatives?
5. So, yes, I disagree with the ruling, think it's pathetic, actually. This is a test of free speech. Others have argued these points more persuasively, and with more evidence, than I have here.
Comments