OK, I'll admit I don't have a horse in the Gay Marriage race (other than being supportive of human rights). But I'm struggling with two things.
First, the righties complained that "activist" judges were usurping the will of the people by enabling gay marriage outside of the legislative process. Now California lawmakers have voted to support such unions, and the rightie celebrity figurehead of the state has threatened veto, saying this is a judicial, not a legislative matter. I guess its still the ideology, not the reality, that counts. BTW, California represents nearly 12% of the nation's population.
The second is more complex. Why does one feel that a shift in the traditional definition of marriage threatens the "sanctity" or value of his or her own marriage? Isn't my own marriage my partner's and mine to define and mold? If I own a $2M showcase home, is the value of it to me diminished if someone describes their tree-fort as a home? Or do I even have the right to define another's home as merely a tree-fort? I guess this fits with the rightie need to force their beliefs on others.
No comments:
Post a Comment