Race, Simple Minds & Who Benefits?
I was listening to Randi Rhodes on the radio a little while ago and she…
The California Supreme Court today overturned California Proposition 22, from the 2000 election, which attempted to define that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state.
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the “California Defense of Marriage Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Of course the traditionalists and the religious right are not going to be happy in the slightest about this and I completely expect that the usual claims that this is going to destroy marriage is on the horizon. I also expect that Pat Robertson will be having a mental meltdown on Friday’s edition of the 700 Club, more on him and a few of his recent statements later.
I am sure that the religious right was not taken completely by surprise since they have been gathering 1.1 million signatures to qualify a state constitutional amendment to deny same-sex marriage, Initiative 07-0068.
SECTION 1. This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Section 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The actual text is identical, but by adding it to the state’s Constitution, the current ruling would be trumped.
We could go into the lower arguments that the very people that claim same-sex marriage will destroy the institution also have some of the highest divorce rates and little regard for marriage outside their personal interest, but let’s look at a few of the “better” arguments that I have heard as of late.
Pat Robertson has never really been one of my favorite people, but as of late he has developed a near Ph.D. in “hoof in mouth” disease. Here is an excellent example…
|1:04-1:50||:||Pat feels that maximum of 2% of the population is “gay” and 1% are “lesbian” so it is acceptable to discriminate against this nominal number since they do not make up 10-20%.|
|2:21-2:47||:||Though he hasn’t the courage to actually say it, he feels that marriage is only about reproduction since he has repeatedly stated that when two men or two women can procreate, he would be willing to reconsider his objection to same-sex marriage.
This argument has always made me wonder why these people claim this argument when they would never refuse a heterosexual couple the privilege of marriage if they had no intent to have children, by choice, biology or age…
|2:47-3:10||:||“The reason we protect marriage is children.” OK, so let’s change the laws so that marriage is only available to couples having children and dissolve said marriages when the children are no longer at home.|
These so called objections are not really arguments, but simple excuses that non-thinking individuals will accept. Pat and those like him are more than happy to condemn people in “cults” for drinking the arsenic laced kool-aid, but when it comes to there own poison laden kool-aid, drink and be happy…
oh yes and “saved.”