A lot of people have been asking about our first dance song, so here it is!
We wanted a celebratory sounding song, something a little different and off the wall, and this song also had a lot in it's lyrics that made it seem like the song was talking about us. Love it!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
'Gay Rights' continued!
A few arguments...
I have come to notice that one large problem with a large block of the electorate is the definition of marriage. That religiously, morally, etc. is defined as between a woman and man.
Here's the thing,
Do we drop marriage in the legal sense all together?
Bear with me here,
Wikipedia defines marriage as:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
(underlining added for emphasis on things I plan to elaborate on)
I would say for example, my parents, many family, and friends have had all four of the types of marriage described in the first definition of marriage.
Social, they had family and friends present.
Legal, they had documents from the state signed, sealed, and delivered.
Religious, they took place in a church with both participants being baptized and a current member of a major religion.
Spiritual, the participants believed God was present in the moment and thereafter.
Non-denominational people only fit three definitions.
Secular folks only meet the first two definitions.
Some who elope even only really meet the legal aspect.
Now I will also list the definition of marriage from the Catholic standpoint. Why? Because that is how I was raised...
Catholics define marriage as an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace.
Now with that being said, shouldn't any secular marriage legally be disallowed? Divorce as well?
Here is my dilemma,
So where we are concerned within the law, shouldn't the legal aspect be the only definition we are concerned about? Shouldn't wise, intelligent human beings who are solid in their faith be able to separate the legal and religious definition of marriage and there by not stand in the way of gay marriage? (I understand I used the term human beings in there and by default we are imperfect beings, so this may not happen, but is that not logical at least?)
The final part of the definition of marriage only includes one part a gay couple could not do without help from an outside member of the marriage. Procreation. And even then, plenty of heterosexual couples need sperm donors or surrogate mothers to help them have children.
CIVIL UNIONS
Many argue that Civil Unions take care of this gay marriage issue.
The argument is that gay Civil Unions should be allowed and that they should have the full protection and rights as a Marriage. They said the same thing about schooling and other social utilities in the last century in respect to divisions between White and Black. I am no Civil Rights scholar, so I cannot pretend to understand a lot about the Separate but Equal policy, but I plan to do some reading. But from what I understand it doesn't work and was considered illegal by the courts.
Again from Wikipedia,
The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separate" used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy. The Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. The companion case of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 outlawed such practices at the Federal level in the District of Columbia. In 1967 under Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage ("anti-miscegenation laws") in the United States.
So the argument for Civil Unions with the same rights and protections as marriage would be unconstitutional per this precedent. Or so I think. Again, not that smart and not a lawyer.
(Plus can we agree there is a certain similarity to what is going on with the Anti-Miscegenation laws from as late as 1967 in the U.S. and in South Africa as a part of apartheid as late as 1985? I believe a large portion of the electorate would consider those Anti-Miscegenation laws reprehensible now, but still support banning gay marriage.)
So if marriage is an unacceptable term, and separate Civil Unions are unconstitutional, shouldn't we just dissolve marriage from the legal aspect completely and make everything a Civil Union? Is this possible to form as a proposition to go on a ballot?
I personally don't want to stop the institution of marriage, just rename it if that is the major problem. But is that really what is necessary?
Again, I welcome dialogue please!
(I avoided using statistics to argue my case because they can be misconstrued very easily and are therefore often disbelieved the second they are put forth as an argument.)
I have come to notice that one large problem with a large block of the electorate is the definition of marriage. That religiously, morally, etc. is defined as between a woman and man.
Here's the thing,
Do we drop marriage in the legal sense all together?
Bear with me here,
Wikipedia defines marriage as:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.
(underlining added for emphasis on things I plan to elaborate on)
I would say for example, my parents, many family, and friends have had all four of the types of marriage described in the first definition of marriage.
Social, they had family and friends present.
Legal, they had documents from the state signed, sealed, and delivered.
Religious, they took place in a church with both participants being baptized and a current member of a major religion.
Spiritual, the participants believed God was present in the moment and thereafter.
Non-denominational people only fit three definitions.
Secular folks only meet the first two definitions.
Some who elope even only really meet the legal aspect.
Now I will also list the definition of marriage from the Catholic standpoint. Why? Because that is how I was raised...
Catholics define marriage as an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace.
Now with that being said, shouldn't any secular marriage legally be disallowed? Divorce as well?
Here is my dilemma,
So where we are concerned within the law, shouldn't the legal aspect be the only definition we are concerned about? Shouldn't wise, intelligent human beings who are solid in their faith be able to separate the legal and religious definition of marriage and there by not stand in the way of gay marriage? (I understand I used the term human beings in there and by default we are imperfect beings, so this may not happen, but is that not logical at least?)
The final part of the definition of marriage only includes one part a gay couple could not do without help from an outside member of the marriage. Procreation. And even then, plenty of heterosexual couples need sperm donors or surrogate mothers to help them have children.
CIVIL UNIONS
Many argue that Civil Unions take care of this gay marriage issue.
The argument is that gay Civil Unions should be allowed and that they should have the full protection and rights as a Marriage. They said the same thing about schooling and other social utilities in the last century in respect to divisions between White and Black. I am no Civil Rights scholar, so I cannot pretend to understand a lot about the Separate but Equal policy, but I plan to do some reading. But from what I understand it doesn't work and was considered illegal by the courts.
Again from Wikipedia,
The repeal of "separate but equal" laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), attorneys for the NAACP referred to the phrase "equal but separate" used in Plessy v. Ferguson as a custom de jure racial segregation enacted into law. The NAACP, led by the soon-to-be first black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, was successful in challenging the constitutional viability of the separate but equal doctrine, and the court voted to overturn sixty years of law that had developed under Plessy. The Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. The companion case of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 outlawed such practices at the Federal level in the District of Columbia. In 1967 under Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage ("anti-miscegenation laws") in the United States.
So the argument for Civil Unions with the same rights and protections as marriage would be unconstitutional per this precedent. Or so I think. Again, not that smart and not a lawyer.
(Plus can we agree there is a certain similarity to what is going on with the Anti-Miscegenation laws from as late as 1967 in the U.S. and in South Africa as a part of apartheid as late as 1985? I believe a large portion of the electorate would consider those Anti-Miscegenation laws reprehensible now, but still support banning gay marriage.)
So if marriage is an unacceptable term, and separate Civil Unions are unconstitutional, shouldn't we just dissolve marriage from the legal aspect completely and make everything a Civil Union? Is this possible to form as a proposition to go on a ballot?
I personally don't want to stop the institution of marriage, just rename it if that is the major problem. But is that really what is necessary?
Again, I welcome dialogue please!
(I avoided using statistics to argue my case because they can be misconstrued very easily and are therefore often disbelieved the second they are put forth as an argument.)
Sunday, November 09, 2008
'Gay Rights'
I have a strange question for all of you...
Would you mind sharing with me their thoughts/feelings on Gay rights?
Specifically the following subjects:
Gay Marriage
Civil Unions
Gay Adoption
Non-Discrimination Clauses
I am looking for people's honest feelings on this subject because I am seriously debating this subject with various people right now, and I would like to hear a wide variety of opinions. Not just yes/no answers but preferably qualified answers, or even not answers, but thoughts on the subject.
I will say that I would love to have a dialogue with everyone about this, so if you do not want me responding to your opinion, I would say so, and I will do my best. That said, I don't know how many responses I will get, so I can't say I will respond individually to everyone.
I am debating whether or not to share my opinion on the subject in case it alters the responses in anyway. Some of you know anyhow, I'm sure.
So... assume I am not on either side. Or if it works better for you, assume I am opposite your position.
Thanks! Any questions are welcome, and again, mention it if you do not want me posting your answer or would prefer me to post it anonymously.
Dave
Would you mind sharing with me their thoughts/feelings on Gay rights?
Specifically the following subjects:
Gay Marriage
Civil Unions
Gay Adoption
Non-Discrimination Clauses
I am looking for people's honest feelings on this subject because I am seriously debating this subject with various people right now, and I would like to hear a wide variety of opinions. Not just yes/no answers but preferably qualified answers, or even not answers, but thoughts on the subject.
I will say that I would love to have a dialogue with everyone about this, so if you do not want me responding to your opinion, I would say so, and I will do my best. That said, I don't know how many responses I will get, so I can't say I will respond individually to everyone.
I am debating whether or not to share my opinion on the subject in case it alters the responses in anyway. Some of you know anyhow, I'm sure.
So... assume I am not on either side. Or if it works better for you, assume I am opposite your position.
Thanks! Any questions are welcome, and again, mention it if you do not want me posting your answer or would prefer me to post it anonymously.
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
