12.13.2008
12.12.2008
amending "constitutionally amended"
A while back, I wrote a post offering up a possible solution to giving homosexual couples the same property and civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples. After watching Isaac's video post between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee on the Daily Show I felt the need to add to my rant.
Here we go...
Mike Huckabee said, "definitions matter" to people. And he's right.
The whole point, and one I have grievously missed, is that the definition of marriage should be changed to include all people who want to be joined in a legally-binding monogamous way. It's inclusiveness that is desired, not exclusiveness (which I suggested by saying that the words should be changed to fit the needs of a separation of church and state). I'm sorry for my ignorance.
Mr. Huckabee, if the crux of "marriage" is for procreation, then why do we allow heterosexual couples who cannot procreate the right to marriage? Why do we allow heterosexual couples who neglect their children, or divorce, or who adopt, the right to marriage when they cannot create and maintain a "traditional" nuclear family? And if marriage is not a right, but rather a privileged, like my driver's license, then why don't I have to take a comprehensive exam to pass to prove that I am ready to be married? Why was I allowed to be married so freely with out question of intent? People like me should never have gotten married at the age I did without a marriage ed class at the very least. I'm just saying!
Here we go...
Mike Huckabee said, "definitions matter" to people. And he's right.
The whole point, and one I have grievously missed, is that the definition of marriage should be changed to include all people who want to be joined in a legally-binding monogamous way. It's inclusiveness that is desired, not exclusiveness (which I suggested by saying that the words should be changed to fit the needs of a separation of church and state). I'm sorry for my ignorance.
Mr. Huckabee, if the crux of "marriage" is for procreation, then why do we allow heterosexual couples who cannot procreate the right to marriage? Why do we allow heterosexual couples who neglect their children, or divorce, or who adopt, the right to marriage when they cannot create and maintain a "traditional" nuclear family? And if marriage is not a right, but rather a privileged, like my driver's license, then why don't I have to take a comprehensive exam to pass to prove that I am ready to be married? Why was I allowed to be married so freely with out question of intent? People like me should never have gotten married at the age I did without a marriage ed class at the very least. I'm just saying!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)