Getting Over It
“We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective.” “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
On Friday, in a unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a legislative ban on same-sex marriage using language uniquely direct and unequivocal.
Has it ever been more elegantly, more simply put?
How can limiting the rights of gay and lesbian citizens in any way improve public policy?
Gay and lesbian rights, including the right to marriage, are growing slowly each day as state after state in America allows for more inlcusion.
Some 30 states have still have legal or constitutional provisions banning gay marriage or civil unions. Most of these roughly correspond with the states that voted Republican last November.
2 comments:
David said, "Most of these roughly correspond with the states that voted Republican last November." Perhaps also states with the greatest number of people practicing fundamentalist versions of religions.
It is strange to hold that two people joining together in a supportive partnership will somehow damage the lives of others. However, Canadian tolerance is incomplete and not longstanding. When I graduated in the sixties from a high school outside the big city, we didn't have gays. There might have been a handful at UBC back then. Perhaps that life style started sometime later. Maybe?
David, the issue of gay marriage is low on my priority list. It was made legal here in Canada and hasn't directly affected my life at all. And I wholeheartedly believe that gay couples should have all the same benefits, etc. of heterosexual couples.
But if I was given the choice to vote on it, I would vote 'No' for gay marriage. If you or your readers think this makes me a bigot then c'est la vie.
I heard someone recently suggest that all liberal democratic societies have a built-in self-destruction mechanism. Years ago I would have thought this to be nonsense but now I wonder if the concept of unlimited rights for everyone and a determination to never discriminate against anyone in any way is taking us down a very slippery slope.
Let me pose some questions to you which I hope you will take the time to think about carefully before responding to.
1. Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a man should be able to have any number of wives?
2. Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that an adult child should be able to marry their mother or father?
3. Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a brother and sister should be able to marry each other?
4. Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a 6'2" tall man, who states that he believes he's a woman, should be able to wear a dress & makeup and stand in the girls bathroom at a local school or swimming centre?
5. Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that the concept of separating boys and girls into different sports leagues is completely outdated?
I'm most interested in your answers. Please note that if you don't agree with all of these initiatives that more than a few people would call you a bigot and believe you to be absolutely wrong.
Post a Comment