An eclectic mix of observations from the farm in Oregon about politics, literature, education, life in general, and anything that interests us. There will be a chronicle of discovery as we build a new, solar friendly, energy efficient, elder equipped house under "THE SHAMBLES."
Herein you'll find sometimes passionate opinion on a multitude of topics. The moderator will not remove a post on the basis of its author's point of view, but does reserve the right to remove posts which don't maintain a sense of decorum. Contrary opinions will be vigorously defended.
posted by Richard Yarnell @ 9:09 PM
Now retired: formerly US Coast Guard; Actor; Union Exec (AEA); Solar industry exec; Theatre Manager; canoe builder and woodwright; farmer
1 Comments:
My grandmother used to say she was "so mad she could spit." Well I
am. I don't like to see our
Constitution violated again by pandering politicians out for political exercise.
The "Defense of Marriage" amendment to which Bush, and others who
should know better, have given their support, is anathema to
everything in our Constitution, from equal protection to separation of
church/state.
It is petty because it seeks to set up a class of people and to
deprive them of rights afforded to others.
It suggests ignorance of the current system which, in fact, is
organized in two parts. The State supervises unions under civil law
quite apart from any religious ceremony. Civil ceremonies are
conducted by judges, mayors, ships' captains, justices of the peace
without reference, necessarily, to religion. A preacher conducting a
religious ceremony, actually wears two hats, one of which is as agent
of the State.
Frankly, I think gay/lesbian constituents are making a mistake by
insisting on use of the term "marriage." Marriage leans toward the religious ceremony even if it technically describes the civil ceremony too.
What the various religious organizations grant or don't to gay/lesbian couples is up to each church and should be immune to civil tinkering. But, at the same time, what the State provides for one individual should be equally available to everyone, immune to the tinkering of churches.
The State grants a divorce, relief from the demands of a civil marriage contract, without reference to church law. On that basis, Catholics may be granted divorce under civil law but not under church law. (I'm not Catholic and so don't know whether the Church has changed its practice. Feel free to set me straight;)
I will not brook use of this inflammatory and largely misunderstood debate for political advantage. I condemn anyone who supports the proposed amendment as selfish and mean. Far more threatening to traditional marriages than the behavior of gay couples, is the behavior of men and women who divorce at a rate approaching 50%.
On a personal note, I have close friends who have been deprived of the opportunity to help their partners to make medical decisions, to even visit them in hospital; I know gay partners whose end of life wishes were challenged on the grounds they were not married. I know so many gay couples whose devotion and love for one another is as strong and caring as any heterosexual partnership, yet recognition of their commitment was withheld by society. That's wrong and should not be tolerated.
Finally, to state the obvious, the advocates of this egregiously
titled amendment have to seek a Constitutional Amendment because,
lacking that, any law that seeks the same result will be declared
unconstitutional.
They should be ashamed and held toaccount for a selfish and un-American action.
Post a Comment
<< Home