First, there is absolutely no defensible secular argument against allowing same-sex partners to be united in a marital relationship--none whatsoever. All of the arguments against such unions ultimately boil down to religious belief; and, as the Representative said, such beliefs should not be enshrined in law.
Second, I was (for that reason) put off by the current of God-talk in his submission. Whether or not same-sex couples (or opposite-sex couples, for that matter) can live a “holy” or “godly” life (whatever that may be) is irrelevant in a pluralistic, secular society. He was addressing a legislative assembly, not a diocesan synod.
Third, the question of whether attraction to persons of the same sex is innate or learned, genetic or chosen, is like the flowers that bloom in the spring: it has nothing to do with the case. Raising the issue contributes nothing to this particular discussion, and serves only to darken counsel.
And finally, you and I are old enough to remember when there were still anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. If I remember correctly, Delaware was the only state that did not at least flirt with this sort of tomfoolery. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court knocked them into a cocked hat {Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)}. Today, most people under 30 don’t know what miscegenation is; and when they’re told, they are surprised that people could ever have been so stupid. If the polls are correct with regard to age distribution of attitudes, the time is approaching, and will be here soon, when most people will regard the current crop of “defence of marriage” laws with the same type of incredulity.
How many of God's gay people can dance on the head of a pin?
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts, in no particular order:
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is absolutely no defensible secular argument against allowing same-sex partners to be united in a marital relationship--none whatsoever. All of the arguments against such unions ultimately boil down to religious belief; and, as the Representative said, such beliefs should not be enshrined in law.
Second, I was (for that reason) put off by the current of God-talk in his submission. Whether or not same-sex couples (or opposite-sex couples, for that matter) can live a “holy” or “godly” life (whatever that may be) is irrelevant in a pluralistic, secular society. He was addressing a legislative assembly, not a diocesan synod.
Third, the question of whether attraction to persons of the same sex is innate or learned, genetic or chosen, is like the flowers that bloom in the spring: it has nothing to do with the case. Raising the issue contributes nothing to this particular discussion, and serves only to darken counsel.
And finally, you and I are old enough to remember when there were still anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. If I remember correctly, Delaware was the only state that did not at least flirt with this sort of tomfoolery. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court knocked them into a cocked hat {Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)}. Today, most people under 30 don’t know what miscegenation is; and when they’re told, they are surprised that people could ever have been so stupid. If the polls are correct with regard to age distribution of attitudes, the time is approaching, and will be here soon, when most people will regard the current crop of “defence of marriage” laws with the same type of incredulity.