Lunar Adventures: exploring a little bit of everything
Blog post [Displaying post and comments]
Friends of LunarAdventures:
- MediaWhiz
- Houston marketing agency is Texas wide
- payday loans cash advance needs
Don’t forget to vote!
There are important elections across the country — don’t forget to participate in your local election!
Here in Texas, we have (among other items) a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution that keeps same-sex unions from being legally recognized.
I’m on the record as being a conservative, but I will be voting against this amendment.
If a church decides not to recognize a same-sex union, that’s the church’s business. The church is a private organization, and can choose to recognize whatever union it feels like. The Bible says no same-sex union? Then the church should not recognize it. That’s perfectly OK.
The government is a whole other story. The government is not bound by the church’s doctrines. It is none of the government’s business if someone feels that their ideal life partner happens to be of the same gender. The government should recognize their union as a legally binding one in the same way it does a “traditional” marriage.
The proposed amendment is worded as such:
“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
I’d go as far as to feel that the term “marriage” is misused. Governments shouldn’t deal in marriages — only civil unions. Marriage has a spiritual connotation (even if dictionaries do define it as any union, not just a union under God) that the government should avoid in keeping with the separation of church and state.
I do wonder if the proposition will pass — Texas is known for being rather stalwart in its beliefs. I hope there are enough people that feel the government is intruding in people’s lives too far in this case, and vote against the proposition.
Tue November 8th, 2005 3:54 pm
Filed under Life
6 comments
Leave a comment
I agree. Additionally, I think some people need to lighten up about non-issues. There are so many other, more important issues that need our attention, rather than worrying about who a person is sleeping with or living with. It’s nice to know that “critical minds” are spending time on this, rather than dealing with crime, high tuition costs, the effects of flooding, and dishonesty in politics, among other issues.
Our ban was passed last year 65-35, or something like that. I was horrified. I thought Michigan voters were better than that (wrong!) After same-sex partners of state employees started being denied benefits, the voters were like “oh, no, we didn’t mean to do that!” Assholes. Why don’t you read and think about the thing you’re voting on instead of voting from your gut? I think ours was worded in such a way that civil unions are now impossible, too.
I agree with you on government recognition of marriage. They should all be civil unions. All this hullabaloo over semantics.
I don’t know that anyone of consequence has even been thinking of forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple, have they? I would not be in favor of that, either, but I doubt that it’s really an issue–why would a same-sex couple want to get married in a church that was already hostile to them anyway?
The only things up for vote here this year were city council members and a millage to deal with this little bastard making trees rot and fall over. No statewide initiatives, nothing. The Detroit Mayoral race was amusing to watch (even though we naturally could not vote in it) simply because the (now re-elected, ugh) mayor is an over-the-top sleazy fellow.
The Texas one, which was just an add-on anyway but still a nutpunch, passed 75-25. I was hoping for 60-40 at least, but not so much. Ah, well. I shouldn’t be surprised.
I agree, Zach, let people pair off and have the government figure out real problems.
you say…
“The government is a whole other story. The government is not bound by the church’s doctrines. It is none of the government’s business if someone feels that their ideal life partner happens to be of the same gender. The government should recognize their union as a legally binding one in the same way it does a “traditional” marriage.”
I say…
What if someone decides that their ideal life partner happens to be 2 people?
Same premise, and in fact commonly accepted in other countries. Is there a line?
It’s a good point. I think that people are partners is just a commonly accepted practice. You could make an argument for no unions at all as easily as you could make an argument for a 3 person union. Who says the line should be further out, and not further in?
Since we already have a line at 2 people, I don’t see much clamoring for making it 3 people. What are the compelling arguments in favor of 3, outside of that some countries do it? My support of 2 people is simply based on that’s what the current laws provide for — unions of 2 people. I feel that within those two people (people — I’ve heard the argument “why not a person and a dog? a person and a dune buggy? a person and their favorite lawnmower?”), the gender shouldn’t matter. I don’t see a reason to make it three — but sway me. Since I see no reason for 3, I think a line at 2 is perfectly appropriate.
Well the current (shall I say prior law) stated that a union was between a man and a woman which many states are beginning to amended to allow same sex.
I’m not saying I’m for or against 3 person or more unions or even same sex unions, but the point is that based on your reasoning for allowing same sex unions there is no reason why the government should not allow other types. If we’re just going on “it’s none of the government’s business deciding what is and is not an ideal life partner” then why stop at same sex marriages?
Personally, I say keep it all at man and female on the government level, but allow same sex unions the same priviliges that marriages receive (tax, healthcare, social security wise, etc). Lets be honest, we’re talking about money here in the first place and as long as they receive the same benefits as a male-female union, then I don’t think anyone would care.