What most people tend to forget when talking about this issue, is that there's more at stake here than just the morality of homosexuality. Married couples are entitled to certain benefits in this country, which include the ability to file taxes jointly and better healthcare coverage to name just two. All of this because of a simple piece of paper that says two people are in a committed relationship. Whether or not you're willing to accept the fact that two men or women can be in such a thing, the fact that these benefits are being denied to these couples is absolutely unconstitutional, and it may take a decade or two but that fact will eventually be discovered in this country.
I bristle every time I hear any politician talk about "morals" in the lawmaking process. I don't care about their morality, because in many cases (such as our current administration and half the justices on the Supreme Court) their morality varies from my own. It strikes me as insane that people are still willing to listen to a politician tell them that the government has a role to uphold a certain (translation: their) standard of morality, and this is the #1 argument against gay marriage. So pass your law, Bush. But in 5, 10 or 20 years, or however long it takes, you'll be looked at with the same disdain as Strom Thurman's "dixicrat" presidential bid. Embarassing, outdated, and unbelievable that intelligent people ever believed such things.
Posted by jason at July 30, 2003 01:24 PM
| TrackBack
| Read more: Politics
I don't necessarily agree that such a law, if actually passed, would be declared unconstitutional in twenty years. The Supreme Court is extremely conservative and is poised to become moreso over the next few years (assuming the current Administration wins the next election and has the opportunity to appoint new justices over the next few years). Supreme Court justices are appointed for lifetime terms, and so if they share the current Administration's view on the issue, and read the constitution conservatively, we'll likely be stuck with such a definition of marriage for a few decades at least.
The political climate in this country, exclusive of places like New York, is becoming more conservative. I doubt that the Democrats will be able to win the next election (though I would love them to), and so this country is passing some very scary laws and will continue to do so.
So the real issue is more one of preventing such a legal definition of marriage from being passed as law in the first place.
This has everything to do with the false idea created by the Republican party (and partially explained by Bill Maher) that a man's inegrity has nothing to do with the amount of illegal drugs he admits to have taken during the same period of his life that he was a pilot in the National Guard, but is completely dependent upon how often he has sex with his wife.
Laws enacted by criminals will not stand the test of time. If this actually becomes law, it will be a lengthy inconvenience at worst, and in the meantime, homosexual couples in committed relationships should feel welcome in New York, where an official domestic partnership is recognized by the City as deserving of shared health benefits.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)