| The Marriage Amendment |
 The Marriage Amendment
|
Oct. 5th, 2006 @ 12:23 pm 
|
|---|
So, one of the things that will be voted upon in the upcoming election is an amendment to the constitution of the State of Wisconsin. For those of you that don't know how this works in Wisconsin: a proposed amendment needs to be passed by majority vote in two separate sessions of the state legislature. A "session" is a year's worth of legislative work, so the amendment has to wait at least two years...
If passed twice by the legislature, the proposed amendment goes onto the next general election ballot and it must be approved by a simple majority of the state's registered voters. That is where we are at... in about a month this proposed amendment will be offered up for approval or rejection by the voters.
The marriage amendment specifies that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. It goes on to state that same sex marriages and civil unions (or other significant partnerships) will NOT be recognized in this state.
Amendments like this have been passed in nearly 20 states of the USA at this point in time. In Michigan, the amendment is now being interpreted to mean that no forms of domestic partnerships or domestic partnership benefits can be recognized. The as yet unforeseen interpretations of this kind of amendment are something to think about when making a decision on this sort of issue.
Setting aside one's personal attitude toward sexual orientations other than the "traditional" heterosexual orientation, what we are talking about here is writing discrimination into our legal system. Similar debates occurred decades ago when the white majority, feeling threatened by affirmative action and the increase in the numbers of inter-racial couples wanted to stop these kinds of relationships being recognized.
The same kinds of arguments were used "It will threaten the institution of 'the family'!" "It's not natural!" "It goes against religious doctrine!" Fatuous, meaningless, prejudicial areguments.
There is a fair body of psychological research that strongly suggests that one's sexual orientation is strongly influenced by a combination of genetics and prenatal environment. While there are certainly other factors involved, the strength of these two factors is important: sexual orientation is not an issue of choice for every person, for many it may be as integral a part of their being as their eye color, skin color or blood type.
Other research that indicates that the children of gay or lesbian couples are no more or less likely to be homosexual than the children of hetersexual couples. That the happiness of a child and how well adjusted they are has more to do with the strength of their caretakers' relationship than their sexual orientation.
The simple fact of the matter is that this amendment, and the laws that would come from it, will only serve to make discriminatory practices legal.
My own perspective is this:
Marriages and civil unions are partnerships that two people get into wherein the couple share financial, social, emotional, and whatever other -als responsibilites and rights. It is a legal partnership, recognized by the nation and the state, giving the members of the couple certain rights and responsibilities with respect to each other. People don't like to frame it in such objective terms, but from a legal standpoint this is what a marriage is whether it was performed by a rabbi, a priest, a justice of the peace, an imam... whoever.
Religious marriages have traditionally been accorded the same legal status as a union or marriage performed by a member of the judiciary, but the reverse (recognition of a civil ceremony by a religious institution) has NOT and IS NOT always the case. Both of these things seems to be a well accepted part of life in this country. According to the government, my wife and I are married... according to many religious institutions, we would NOT be considered married, because we did not have it done by a religious officiary. Doesn't bother us... their views mean nothing to us or our commitment to each other.
If a religious organization wishes to impose their own set of values upon THEIR ceremonies and restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, that's fine. Religions are basically exclusive clubs that have their own set of rules that members must abide by and one does not have to join/stay a member if one does not like the rules. There are plenty of alternative religions out there.
However, it is NOT the place of government to restrict the rights of consenting adults to participate in relationships or partnerships that they choose to particpate in, as long as those relationships or partnerships are consensual AND do not in any way harm the rights of others. Separation of church and state demands that religiously motivated prejudices NOT become discriminatory secular laws.
Just as miscegnation laws and Jim Crow laws were morally and ethically wrong, codifying discrimination based upon sexual preference is also wrong. Discrimination is discrimination whether it be committed against people of other ethnicities, races, sexual orientations, religions, etc. Laws should protect peoples' rights, not limit or strip them.
So, I would recommend that, if you feel strongly about this issue, you make sure that you go and participate in the general election on November 7.
Personally, I encourage you to vote against this amendment.I'm feelin' :  Pontificatory What's that I hear?: Normal Like You by Everclear |
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by LiveJournal.com |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
plenz's journal