Posted in Current Events
Unless you live under a rock on a foreign planet, you have some knowledge of the definition of marriage (one man and one woman) being challenged all over the country. There are many who believe the definition of marriage should remain as our founding fathers intended it. There are also many who believe that marriage should be redefined to include 2 people of the same sex, as they are seeking the benefits bestowed upon married heterosexual couples. My greatest concern about the issue has been that others will challenge the ruling to include their definition of marriage as well, if our government chooses to redefine marriage. This would create the potential for polygymists among others to challenge the definition. I cannot find the story, but there is a case in a state that has allowed same sex marriages, in which the plaintiff is asking for marriage to be redefined, yet again, to include his beliefs of marriage (if memory serves this also includes animals). He claims that the new definition of marriage has now left him discriminated. Basically, it was said that if they can redefine marriage for same sex couples, then they can't discriminate against other belief systems regarding marriage either. As predicted this has become a three ring circus. Surely, gay activists seeking legal marriage had not intended for this to happen, when they said they were being discriminated.
Take a look at these recent articles about the issue.
_______________________________________________
Same-Sex Marriage: Developments in the Law
The same-sex marriage battle intensifies: A history of the law and the latest news.
A common dictionary definition of family is "the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or adopted children." Despite this all-inclusive definition, a lesbian or gay couple -- with or without children -- has not been what many people picture when they think of a family.
Nevertheless, lesbian and gay couples (and their children) do live in families and have sought societal recognition of their families over the past several decades. It began in the early 1970s, when same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, asked courts to allow one partner to adopt the other, and took other steps to legally cement their relationships. Many of these efforts failed, but some progress was made. By the mid 1980s, same-sex couples were seeking domestic partnership recognition from cities and private companies. This effort continued with increasing strength in the 1990s and on into the new century. In recent years, same-sex couples have made enormous strides toward equal recognition of their families.
Same-Sex Marriage in U.S. Cities
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom really started something on February 12, 2004, when he ordered city clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since then numerous other U.S. cities have followed his lead, and the entire country's attention has been drawn to the debate. But it will be a while before the issue is settled. The California Supreme Court eventually voided all of the marriages performed in 2004; court cases in Oregon had the same result. But lawsuits in San Francisco and elsewhere, challenging restrictions on same-sex marriage, are making their way through the courts, and this issue is not going away any time soon.
Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution and ordered the legislature to remedy the discrimination within six months (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health). In February 2004, the court ruled that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage would not meet the requirements set forth in Goodridge. As a result, same-sex couples in Massachusetts can enter into civil marriages, and a few thousand of them have done so already. The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering an amendment to the state constitution to forbid marriage between same-sex couples, but the soonest such an amendment could take effect is 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
My point here is small, but valid I think. There is so much time and money being spent on this issue, that it is literally tearing the country apart. Heterosexuals who are married and single are angered that "something" is being taken away from them. I have heard many comment, "Why marry then anyway? Including everyone really just says why should anyway." There are others who have felt they are becoming intolerant of homosexuals who are vocal on this issue, because they feel they are making it much bigger of a deal than it needs to be. There are those who agree with same sex marriage and think the government should stop being so stuffy. Gays are looking around punding their fists for equality. (This is America, they do hae that right, don't they?) Some are diehard about getting marriage redefined. Others are laisez-faire about the whole thing. Still others are frustrated with heterosexuals who think their relationships should not be accepted legally. Then there is everything inbetween for all these people. Yikes!
What I want to know is, when did the guidelines for a right have the ability to be redefined because some don't like it? The guidelines for the right of marriage (as it stands now) is one single man and one single woman. If you are not a single man and single woman you do not qualify for this right. The guidelines (briefly) for U.S. citizenship are born on American soil or having gone through the proper channels to become a citizen. If you have not legally requested citizenship and taken the test or you are not born in this country, you do not qualify for this right.
I guess what I am really wondering is, why do we bother with rights at all? If all one needs to do when they do not like the qualifications of a right is to gather in mass and protest, why on earth don't we do away with them altogether? What are guidelines for? Why are some guidelines adhered to and others considered discriminatory? Why do we even need the Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality of rights and laws?
I just don't understand this yet.
These are my thoughts.
Posted by Anonymous
![letitsnowblinkie1[1]](http://static.flickr.com/106/309458008_3247f169ee_o.gif){kind=small}
