Sorry to be the
golden shower on the rainbow parade, but Obama’s stance in favor of gay
marriage is nothing more than election year politics at its most cynical.
Supporters
praising Obama’s “courage” and this “historic moment” are being hopeful and naïve.
The White House knew the North Carolina referendum was coming and that it would
probably win and timed the announcement accordingly.
Obama knows
there is little he can do for them, but he wants gay activists’ campaign cash
and he wants to rally them to his campaign after angering them with years of
inaction.
Obama was
against gay marriage in 2008. Then he said his position was “evolving,” which
meant he was going to change it as soon as it was politically feasible. In
making this announcement, Obama pays lip service to the gay
rights groups and gets activist supporters more interested in his campaign.
But while gay
rights advocates will be motivated to come to the polls in November for a
President who is now conveniently waving the rainbow flag, religious
fundamentalists won’t be as motivated – their candidate supported gay rights
until he started running for president.
The solution is
to have no government stance on marriage at all. Marriage is a private
agreement between two people. Let two people who want to be married get their
marriage/civil union agreement notarized and then file it with their local
county clerk. Gays will call it marriage and religious people will disagree,
but who cares? The government has absolutely NO business in the personal
relationships of its citizens.
I think even
most of the religious activists agree that all consenting adults should be able
to live their lives as they choose and determine who will be their family
beneficiaries and next of kin. They get hung up on having the government calling
gay unions marriages. But if things were running right, the government wouldn’t
be involved in marriages/civil unions at all.
We still have our
armed forces fighting in the Middle East, ruinous amounts of debt piling up,
crumbling infrastructure and increasing crime. Let’s stop using this wedge issue
for short-term electoral gain, let all adults form whatever relationships they
choose, and move to solve some other issues.
1 comment:
Actually, i think the government does have a stake in marriage.
Marriage, at it heart, is a contract between 2 adult. It protects rights (property rights), and is invaluable for protecting and guaranteeing the support of children.
There are a whole bunch of other right/ and prividges that go along wit the legal state of marriage.
Marriage can also be a religious right (but there is a long history in english common law, (and US law) of martial rights. and the protection a marriage offers should be extended to everyone who want to marry.
(all this side crap about marriage being a religious thing--hogwash! Marriages are contracts. a simple legal document--as for who can validate, and enforce the contract? why that is the state.
(and yes, i agree, it a political move--but its a good move, even if made for bad reasons!)
Post a Comment