Monday, March 14, 2005

Separate but Equal.


The notion of "family values" still lives on within the Republican party. Recall that Republicans are advocating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Have they lost their minds? Probably. I simply cannot see how banning gay marriage will protect the institution of marriage. In a major victory for gay rights groups, the California Supreme Court ruled today that a voter approved measure to ban gay marriage in California is unconstitutional.

Why do we care about the sex lives of consenting adults?

I've heard arguments regarding consistency in state to state recognition of marriages. Perhaps the federal government needs to take a stance one way or the other as my friend the happy capitalist tells me. Seems to me that separate but equal isn't the way.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Point Vavoom! I have always had great respect for this country and the fact that there have only been 27 amendments since the constitution was enacted back in 1787! We need to move forward but I would say our founding Father's had it right. It's not any of our business what Gays and Lesbians do...I know a lot of them who have raised very loving and successful children!

9:03 PM  
Blogger mindful said...

I agree completely, vavoom, but I just wanted to note, it's not the Supreme Court, but the Superior Court that handed down this decision. Seems like this will probably end up in the California Supreme Court, but it's not there yet.

12:08 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Sorry, my bad.

1:39 AM  
Anonymous little john said...

Does "family values" live in the Democratic Party? I thought Dean was going to "frame" the party to appeal to values voters. Think long and hard about marriage. What is it? Is it really the, "sex lives of consenting adults"? Is it an institution to benefit men? Is it an instituiton to benefit women? I am curious about what you think amrriage is, because we cannot talk about gay marriage until we know what marriage is.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous little john said...

I forgot something. How is gay marriage viewed in the Islamic community?

2:47 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Marriage = the union of two individuals seeking to build a life with one another. LJ, what's stopping people from accepting gay unions as marriage? Their behavior in the bedroom, methinks.

2:47 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Islam does not condone homosexual relationships. Separation of church and state, lj, separation of church and state...

2:50 PM  
Anonymous little john said...

Man, V, you are a moderate. More power to you! I think what is stopping thoughtful people from embracing gay marriage is a deeper understanding of marriage. I think marriage is, and has been, the way for women to protect, and extend to their spouse, their sexuality. This argument is best articulated by Sam Schulman in an article entitled, "Marriage-and Gay Marriage". It's not gay-bashing, but instead a very insightful look into what marriage is and has been, and what gay marriage would mean to the institution. Google his name and I am sure it will be easy to find the article.

5:15 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

LJ: I've had a chance to read Schulman's article. He makes some fundamental assumptions about the gay and lesbian community that are specious at best. I also disagree with his characterization of marriage. But let's say he's correct -- marriage is an institution established as an outlet for, and means of protection of, female sexuality. Society once thought African Americans were simply not as "human" as their Aryan bretheren. As a consequence social constructs were built around those beliefs. Upon changing those social constructs we found that society benefited. How does society not benefit from allowing gay marriages? What social constructs will change, and in the process of doing so, harm society? Isn't it possible that we're looking at marriage from a societal vantage point the wrong way? The basis upon which institutions are established is not necessarily correct.

5:57 PM  
Anonymous little john said...

Man, I'll bet some African-Americans would be upset that you compared gay marriage to slavery/racism. I grew up in Southern California so I agree that anything is possible, maybe we are looking at the thing the wrong way. But, I agree with Schulman that gay marriage will cheapen traditional marriage, which will harm society. The basis upon which institutions are established is not necessarily incorrect.

1:46 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

I'm comparing the historical attitude towards African Americans and gay marriage. Prejudice is prejudice. How would it cheapen the institution of marriage?

2:03 PM  
Anonymous sammy bodean said...

Don't hold your breath, Vavoom, he won't answer. Personally, I couldn't care less what the government thinks about my marriage.

9:24 PM  
Anonymous little john said...

V: I think I always answered Sammy when we argued over other issues and I'll always try to answer you as well. It may take awhile. Of course I cannot prove that gay marriage will harm traditional marriage just as nobody can prove that gay marriage will not harm traditional marriage. I believe that after gay marriage is codified straight people (especially more reactionary types)will slowly begin to see marriage as somehow less essential since anyone (any sexual orientation) can be married. I guess we have already seen some of this "drift" post-sexual revolution of the 1960's.

8:33 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

LJ: If we can't prove it one way or another, shouldn't we avoid impinging on their personal freedoms? Our consitution mandates that we should do so, right?

9:31 PM  
Anonymous little john said...

You're sounding like a Libertarian. (That's not a shot at you.) In spite of the constitution there are many limitations on personal freedoms.

11:21 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Those limitations only prevent one person from depriving another of their freedom (murder is one example). I'm no libertarian, but people must be given equal rights.

1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home