Ironic title, isn’t it? It’s even more ironic that there can be so much division over the right of two people to live their lives as a couple in a committed, loving relationship in an institution designed to bring people together.
Many moons ago, I referenced Jeff‘s well-researched entry at “What the Hell…?” on how the institution of marriage had changed throughout history. I, along with many others, were surprised to learn that there was a time in history during which the Catholic church performed same-sex marriages!
With the vote on a Constitutional Amendment blocking gay marriage underway, I thought I would point out a few entries that I thought conveyed a compelling argument.
Recently, Jamey at “This Sublime Dance” put his feelings into powerful words about what he calls “The Hatred Amendment.”
Michael at “Things Just Keep Getting…Stranger” gave an excellent response to the question, “Would Jesus marry two men or two women?”
Almost two months ago, Jay of “Jay’s Journal” exposed the outcome of Massachusetts’ decision to allow gay marriages, pointing out, in case it wasn’t already obvious, that the following morning, the world, in fact, had not ended.
Why rehash this issue again? I think it’s interesting to note that two of the four people I’ve just cited — who share the opinion that the Constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage is wrong — are openly heterosexual.
I’d still like to see someone answer this question: how does the marriage of two people in love affect anyone else’s marriage? No matter what gender, race, or religion the two in one couple happen to be, if you are married to the person you love, how is your marriage affected by what other people do?
Anyone who believes otherwise is hereby invited to describe what they have done to convince their elected officials to take action to prevent the rising divorce rate in this country. That, I would think, has a bigger negative impact on the institution of marriage than two people who love each other (yet happen to be of the same gender) wanting to make that life-long commitment.
I just received an E-mail last week from one of my state senators in response to one I’d sent to him, urging him not to support such an amendment. In his reply, he explains that he wants to make his position very clear:
“As a United States Senator, I will support and protect the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. While it was my hope that the existing Defense of Marriage Act could accomplish this goal, I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage.To that end, I will vote for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the Senate considers one in July.”
It seems to me that he is only out to protect certain people’s rights to “define the institution of marriage,” and even then, not all heterosexual people.
Do people really think that gay people choose to be gay on a whim? Is there anyone out there who believes that this amendment will make the issue of homosexuality just “go away?”
Surely no one is banking on a theory that the day after same-sex marriages are outlawed by an amendment to the Constitution, all gay people will suddenly wake up “straight!” I don’t know about anyone else, but I wouldn’t take that bet.
An interesting news article from “AOL News“…otherwise known as the Associated Press…reveals that there is division in the Cheney household over the issue:
“Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife and mother of a lesbian, said Sunday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.”
The article adds that Dick Cheney seems to have changed his tune on the issue:
“During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney took the position states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.”
This is the position one might expect from the father of a gay child. Whether he supports the child’s sexual orientation or not, one might hope that the child might have a chance at happiness. But:
Both Bush and Cheney have voiced their support this year for the proposed constitutional amendment.
Mrs. Cheney says that she thinks her husband’s position in 2000 was “very good.” When asked about his current stand on the matter, she reaffirmed her preference for local solutions.
The article ends with one note: “The vice president’s press office had no immediate comment Sunday.”
It sounds like one of them may wind up sleeping on the couch before this is decided!