Monday, January 30, 2012

Voting To Discriminate

Smart and clear-speaking, innovative and successful in a tough town, Cory Booker is among the most impressive politicians in the land. And Chris Christie, the presumed future hope of the Republican party, is, on this matter and many others, dead wrong. The above video says exactly what needs saying regarding the idea -- likewise bubbling up in my state as the legislature is about to approve same-sex marriage -- that voters should get to decide matters of basic civil rights. Preventing tyranny, ensuring rights of minorities; it's why we have a constifrickingtution. How can people not get that?

Once again, in a seemingly endless succession of incidents and examples, we see how right-wingers, especially of the religionist variety even as they claim sole ownership of and love for our constitution, haven't the slightest understanding of what it's actually about.


Anonymous said...

Isn't marriage a religious ceremony?

Why is the federal government involved in religious ceremonies?

I'm not even convinced it's a state issue.

If the guy selling flowers and water by the Holland Tunnel wants to marry two dudes and a goat into the church of Scientology, let em!

The flip side is that the government would also need to stop providing preferential tax treatment to married couples (as in the past) or unmarried couples (as buried in Obamacare).

The Liberty liking PT

Sid Schwab said...

My dad, a judge, performed lots of marriages -- for kids of friends, mostly. It was a marriage license that they got, same as everyone else's. No religion involved. FWIW.

Come to think of it, my marriage of 40 years, to a woman as I recall, was officiated by a judge, too.

I don't think it's a state issue, either. But it is a federal issue, a constitutional issue, when a group of people is discriminated against.

Anonymous said...

Congrats on 40 years. I'll bet she knows exactly how much Xanax to sprinkle in your oatmeal after all those wonderful years.

Look how fun it is once people can get hitched to anything:

Anonymous said...

Pet peeve: The Mayor should not include "women" with minorities; women represent roughly HALF of all the people in this country!
On gay marriage:
Marriage, as it exists as a civil or sociological institution acts a legal contract between men and women (not a binding contract if divorce statistics are accurate); and I favor keeping "marriage" the legal union for men and women. However, I have no reservations with same-sex couples having a differently-named social institution --that would serve the desired purpose, to create a legal contract with the same provisions as a marriage contract. I had this discussion with a gay friend I have known for many years and he and his long-time partner agreed. Why does it have to be called "marriage"...

Sid Schwab said...

Why not? Where's the harm? If people want to say they're married and not civil-unioned, why shouldn't they be able? What difference would it make to you? Unless you can show the harm to you, to society, then just because you think it ought to be otherwise doesn't seem a good enough reason to deny a group of people the joy (as it were) of marriage.

I'd argue that if a society wants to discriminate against a group of people, it needs a damn good reason: and the religious beliefs of some don't qualify, in my view.

Popular posts