huh.

[permetaform]

so. ::peers at friendslist:: Massachusetts.

elke_tanzer has gathered a heaping shitload of links from across her friendslist, which is all for the good.

Bush apparently has already tried to retaliate.

And? For various obvious and sundry reasons I'm pro-marriage, in the idealistic for-love-not-money kinda way that I've been raised and bred in. And my concept of love is all-inclusive.

The anti-gay-marriage stance would make more sense if we still lived in a world where people married only to maintain their hereditary line. But people kinda are against the concept of arranged marriages and marrying for money nowadays...

What I'd like to know is what we Americans think, nationally, about this subject. I know that as a Californian, and as a slash fan, I could only represent my little corner of America. I wonder how much good Queer Eye and QaF have done. I wonder how fundamentalist those religious groups actually are and how far they are actually willing to go. It makes me wonder if they are as fringe as I hope they are.

Thing is, it would be devastating if they were the only voices being heard, with no one to question or challenge their fears with anything more logical. Because the anti-gay marriage feeling is based on fear I think, and:

Fiat Lux, goes Berkeley's motto.

Bring the Light

But to do this, one would need solid arguments. I refuse to sound as hysterically uninformed and illogical as this country's Fearless Leader.

So I pose a question to all of you:

What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

The one that affects me the most goes, "So you're going to be banning marriage between a man and a sterile woman as well?", in response to the nature/God ordained sanctity of a male-female marriage.

I've also been hearing good arguments along the lines of the separation of church and state and the fact that by banning gay marriages, the state is trodding on the rights of some religions/religious subgroups (Unitarian, I think? correct me and add more to the list?).

Other ones? Or recommendations of good posts from your own friendslists?

[speaking of good posts, I recommend ivyblossom's and cathexys' entries on the subject, both of which are lengthy and well thought out]

[edit] semi-relevant article

[edit2] letter from gileonnen to the president on the subject.

Comments

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

If we're basing marriage on some sort of religio-spiritual "sanctity" of a union, we are treading very close to negating the viability of civil unions--people married by justices in courtrooms.

Very good point. Marriage as an institution in the U.S. is a much a civil contract as it is a religious sacrament. After all, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ect. are all married outside of the Christian church, and their marriages are all rightly considered just as legal and binding. Personally, I don't see any reason why two men--or two women--shouldn't be able to go before a justice of the peace and become legally married. They might not be married in the eyes of, say, the Catholic church, but then, that's between them and their religious community, not between them and the government. And anyway, I'm pretty sure that a heterosexual marriage conducted in a courtroom doesn't count in the eyes of the Church either.

As for whether or not Bush can do anything about Massachusetts' new law, marriage is (if I'm remembering 9th grade civics correctly) one of the powers that belongs to the states--like drivers' licenses. On the other hand, the federal government has pretty much established that it's laws take piority over state laws. And it already established in the 1860s that states aren't really supposed to do their own thing. A federal mandate forbidding same-sex marriage might invalidate the laws permitting it in Vermont/Massachesetts/ect, but not without great public outcry. And it probably wouldn't win Bush many votes in those states.

[permetaform]

The more I think about this, the more Bush's statements and stance just doesn't make logical sense. egad, but who says that our Fearless Leader needs intelligence anyways? certainly not the Supreme Court ::mutterHailToTheThiefmuttermutter, covers eyes::