- The endgame in the endless Senate race may be beginning now, after Franken extended his lead with the counting of more ballots from areas that were congenial to Franken. Norm and his team are almost certainly correct in feeling that they have been screwed in this process, but the problem is that there doesn't appear to be any remedy. Having said that, I think those who tell Norm that he should give up to "preserve his future viability" or somesuch are blowing smoke. Once you've lost to Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, you don't have any viability left. Fight on, Norm -- you probably won't win but it's your only chance.
- Gay marriage has now come to Vermont. Whatever my own personal misgivings are about this topic, Vermont made the change the right way. Elected legislators wrote the bill, passed it and overrode a governor's veto to make it law. You didn't have judges imposing a law by fiat. That makes a huge difference. It will now be interesting to watch whether or not these Vermont legislators pay a price at the polls for their votes.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Quickly
Two topics that probably deserve more attention than I'm able to give them right now:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It will now be interesting to watch whether or not these Vermont legislators pay a price at the polls for their votes.
being that the state in question is vermont, not likely.
One down - 49 (or 46) to go. Even if they do pay a price, it won't be forever. Legalization of same-sex marriage is an inevitability. Younger generations strongly support same-sex marriage - continued opposition is just a waste of time, money and heartache, in addition to a violation "separation of church and state."
Well Amanda, it may or may not be a waste of time, money and heartache, but it's not a violation of "separation of church and state." That refers to the establishment of a state religion, which has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Considering the history of the matter and the opposition to gay marriage (and homosexuality generally) is common to Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless other faiths, it's clearly not just a matter of church.
I'm guessing that in the long run, you'll be right about the endgame, though. We've been in the process of rejecting a whole lot of long-held beliefs lately. And I'll have more to say about that anon.
All of this is just making more clear what was already true, the state is not a moral agent. It will do what the people want (or at least do what those with power want.) With this understanding, marriage has very little to do with the state (if you believe that marriage is a committment to God, not just another person.) Or, put another way, state "marriage" has very little to do with morality. It is a contract, nothing more. And since the advent of no-fault divorce, it's hardly even that.
its not like heteros at large havn't made a mockery of the whole marriage idea already, as ben already pointed out.
and with one divorce already under my belt, i admit to being part of the problem.
next, polygamy.
and i've supported legal polygamy for 30yrs. i think its a religious practice that should be protected.
The institution of marriage should be something that is a benefit to society. Same-sex marriage allows people to see their partners in the hospital, and inherit their estate, etc. Polygamy - can you imagine the legal ramifications? Even with just inheritance. What about child custody? A mess.
The notion that all of our unions and contracts that we as individuals form with each other in a free society should be subject to a sort of "religion test" or religious veto is anathema to me. In Leviticus, it states that anyone who works on the Sabbath (Saturday) should be put to death by stoning. Hmmm, I did some work last Saturday, so I am against that one. And if your response is "well, we just ignore that part of the Bible", my response would be, "well, I ignore other parts", like the marriage parts.
It seems to me that this is all or nothing: either the Bible is THE source of all our knowlege and ethics, and we should slavishly follow it, or it is not, and we can then not follow it, and make our decisions based on our best exprience and knowledge. I go with the latter.
The notion that all of our unions and contracts that we as individuals form with each other in a free society should be subject to a sort of "religion test" or religious veto is anathema to me.
Me too, John. But it's not an absolute thing and we derive our jurisprudence from a variety of sources dating back to the Code of Hammurabi. At least in the Western tradition, no one ever thought gay marriage was a good idea until the last 20-25 years or so. So it goes.
It seems to me that this is all or nothing: either the Bible is THE source of all our knowlege and ethics, and we should slavishly follow it, or it is not, and we can then not follow it, and make our decisions based on our best exprience and knowledge. I go with the latter.
I'm Catholic so I don't see things that way. I rely on faith and reason and I don't slavishly follow anything (as far as I know). So in the end, I guess we agree.
Post a Comment