I know we spoke briefly last night about this whole gay marriage issue, and the point of this email is not to try to persuade you in any way (your side has already won, after all). However, since I feel very strongly about this issue, I thought that it might be good to let you in on some of my thoughts and opinions about Proposition #2. At least, you can go to sleep tonight knowing – if nothing else – that I am interested in politics. We will probably never agree when it comes to topics like this, but it should be comforting to know that I try very hard to be an educated voter. I have read arguments both for and against Proposition #2, and I have researched the topic extensively.
Plus, I should get points for caring to vote, in the first place. It isn’t like I am all talk, and then “forget” to participate in the democratic process. Not voting yesterday was never an option.
Anyway, I cannot believe that Proposition #2 passed (although, I cannot say that I am necessarily surprised that it passed. I was just hoping that it somehow would not).
Did you know that every single newspaper in Texas advocated for people to vote against Proposition #2? It is so poorly written, and people were (I think) way too preoccupied with the whole “moral” issue instead of looking at the amendment from a legal standpoint (hello! Let’s not confuse church and state, people! I mean, even Jesus said, "Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God." Moral issues have fatally divided nations in the past. Personally, I don’t care what your religious convictions are. Shout them from the mountain top – you have that right. Just don’t make faith based laws – at least not in this country! I think that the Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about when they came up with the First Amendment. For me, as far as the state should be concerned, “marriage” is really the act of two people entering into an official contract in which they agree to take legal responsibility for each other. Anything outside of that is not the business of the state. Period.
I would have felt better about everything if they had just come out and said that Texas will not recognize any marriage that happened outside of the state borders. I mean, think about it, one of the reasons that politicians still argue over “Roe vs. Wade” today is because that whole thing was so poorly written, and yet we’ve done it again. Except now, in my opinion, we’ve just set civil rights back 50 years, and people think that all they’ve voted for is a definition of the word “marriage”. I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted over the course of the next ten or twenty years in an attempt to try and figure out exactly what is meant or implied by this new amendment.
I feel that it is hypocritical to say that the state of Texas will recognize a marriage involving a man and a 14 year-old girl just because it happened in the state of Alabama (you only have to be 13, by the way, to get hitched in New Hampshire), but they will not recognize a marriage that happened legally in Massachusetts because the couple is gay. Also, in more than half of the states in the country, it is legal to marry your first-cousin (Ew. Ew. And EW). It is illegal to marry your first-cousin in Texas, but if you marry your first-cousin in a state where it is legal to do so (and then move to Texas), Texas will recognize it. Why are gay couples so different?
Furthermore, why IS it legal to marry your fourteen year old first-cousin in Alabama in the first place? Why aren’t we writing laws to prevent that?!
How about children of gay couples? What about second-parent adoption? What if only one parent works, while their partner stays home and raises the children? That parent that stays home isn’t eligible for their spouse’s medical insurance now, because the state has just ruled that – because they are gay and got married in another state – their marriage is not a “legal” marriage in the state of Texas. Therefore, the working spouse’s medical insurance company can choose to not cover the non-working spouse and/or children in an “effort” to align themselves properly with the Texas Constitution.
And what about transsexuals? If, physically, they have become a woman and they marry a man – does THAT count? How about hermaphrodites? Parents are forced to “choose” the sex of their baby on the spot if it is born with both sex organs. So, what if the parents decide to raise the child as a “boy” and that boy grows up and is attracted to men? What then? And how about couples that have been together forever, and because they are gay, they can be forced to testify against their partner in a court of law, because they are not protected by rights and privileges of a legally recognized marriage? Plus, since the language of Proposition #2 is SO broad, it also bans the creation (or state recognition) of any relationship “similar or identical to marriage”. So, now, we’ve even prohibited the civil union for gay couples, and essentially placed homosexual couples into a kind of legal limbo! Even legal documents are not a guaranteed form of protection for homosexuals, because judges in Texas are not obligated to consider legislative intent when interpreting the Texas Constitution.
Similar legislation to Proposition #2 has been passed in other states (Texas, though, is the first state to add it to their constitution), and it has had a lot of “unintended” side effects. Like, for example, in Ohio. Judges there have either thrown out or lessened the charges of heterosexual men who have physically abused their girlfriends, because they ruled that Ohio’s domestic violence law no longer applies to unmarried couples. Therefore, it is naïve to think that Proposition #2 won’t adversely affect heterosexual couples in this state as well!
What it really comes down to (at least, for me) is that there is a fundamental separation between church and state in this country. Marriage is, and has always been, a religious matter. Similarly, marriage is a private matter between two consenting adults. Since we, as Americans, enjoy both freedom of religion and a fundamental right to privacy, maybe marriage (as an institution) should cease to be a state or federal concern. I do not want anyone butting into my business and telling me who I can and cannot marry – much less the state of Texas! Civil Unions are different (in the sense that they are much more like a legal contract instead of being religiously and/or culturally based, like the institution of marriage), but with the passing of Proposition #2, even civil unions and domestic partnerships are at risk of being nullified! Why would anyone, in their right mind, allow the government to interfere in their personal lives?! Yet, Texans have just given the government the right to do so! I am not okay with this!
Proposition #2 does nothing to preserve or sanctify marriage. Nothing! It is just another way of imposing Christian values into the laws that govern this state in an effort to do…what?...discourage people from being gay? All it is really doing is overtly discriminating against tax paying citizens because of their sexual orientation. I’m sorry, but if that is not a violation of civil liberties, I don’t know what is! What’s next? Are we going to vote in an effort to make homosexuals count as only 3/5th of a person? It isn’t the same thing, but it isn’t that different either!
Okay, I’m done now. Again, the point of this email is to let you know where I am coming from on this issue. I’ve thought a lot about it, and I think that it is important that you know what I think about stuff like this. Of course, I do not foresee us ever agreeing on subjects surrounding matters of politics. But that does not mean that we cannot respect each other’s different view points. At least, rest assured that I am not just a lemming when it comes to politics. Believe me, it isn’t “cool” to be a liberal, a democrat, etc. in the state of Texas.
In the past, you have called me an “idealistic youth”. Although, I am young, I do not think of myself as an idealist. I look at things from a historic perspective. I study a situation and I research it thoroughly before I make a decision. I apply the situation to today, and I think about the Golden Rule (i.e. if I were gay). I do not like to be told what to think, what to do, what to say. I interpret things for myself, and then I decide. I do not consider myself an idealist, because I take a realistic approach to things. I guess I’d prefer to be called passionate, if I must be labeled at all. I have sworn no allegiance to any one political party, because I am not a political drone. I vote for what I believe in and what I think is right – not just what is right for me, but what is right for people unlike me, too. We are not all the same, and laws should protect us all. I believe that everyone has certain inalienable rights (i.e. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness). That means, that if Trevor makes me happy, than I should be able to love him and marry him (if I so choose). Just like if a man falls in love with another man, or a woman another woman. Why deny yourself what you love, what makes you happy? It is a personal thing, a private thing. It is not the business of the state to decide who you can marry and who you cannot marry; who makes you happy and who doesn’t.
I believe in God. I have read the Bible. I have go to church. I read, “Love thy neighbor” and I choose to take that literately. I believe that loving thy neighbor does not have any restrictions. The Bible never says love thy neighbor except if he is black, Muslim, Jewish, female, gay, rich, poor, liberal, conservative, etc. I believe that God created everyone equally. Everyone.
I also believe, understand and accept that not everyone thinks the same way that I do. No one is right or wrong. We just all think and believe in different things. That should be respected. Keep religion out of law, because the law will govern those of all religions – at least on this earth and in this country.
Less "othering" and more "accepting".
Love,
Deals
P.S. Incase you were curious, here is Proposition #2 (and, YES, I am quoting here):
Ballot Language
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
"Enmienda constitucional que dispone que en este estado el matrimonio consiste exclusivamente en la unión de un hombre y una mujer y que desautoriza, en este estado o en alguna subdivisión política del mismo, la creación o el reconocimiento de cualquier estatus jurídico idéntico o semejante al matrimonio."Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.”
I would also like to point out here (my last point, I promise) that it would not be all that difficult to read the language of Proposition #2 and infer that Texans have somehow just passed a law that outlaws marriage itself. I know that’s not what just happened, but it wouldn’t be difficult to argue that none-the-less.
No comments:
Post a Comment