So California courts decided to give gay marriage an okay. Which isn't terribly surprising. I mean, we've been here before in California. Repeatedly.
Interestingly enough, the legislature in the state of California recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage. The governator decided to veto it; in spite of his campaign promise never to exercise such a veto.
So, as I understand it, the general rule of thumb in the states is as follows:
-the actions of the judicial branch are invalid, since they are not the "will of the people", however, in California, the actions of the courts are preferrable to the legislature, so the opposite rule applies.
-the actions of the representative legislative branch is invalid, as it doesn't represent the "will of the people", except in Massachusetts, where the judicial branch is the invalid actionary member and the legislature acting to overturn their constitutionally-based decision is the proper course of action.
-the actions of the executive branch, acting against the will of the courts and the legislature is a heinous abuse of power, if it is in San Francisco or New York and the action being taken is to bestow rights upon citizens. If it is the governator of California, acting against his own campaign promises and against the elected representatives of the people, then that's an okay thing.
-In other words, it would seem that the good ol' GOP intends to implement a full chaosocracy where the majority has absolute power over the minority and can abuse them and deny them any and all rights via the voting booth, thus overturning the constitutional, representative government which has served us up until today, using the "might makes right and makes your rights invalid" theory of government. The mob mentality right now makes this the most efficient path to achieve their desired results, much as has been done in many past governments, with limited, yet hideously disasterous results.
Summary: Tearing apart the very basis of government in this country and hurtling towards ruin is okay, as long as, in the process, they make sure them faggots don't get adequate health care, family, and estate options, since that'd be disastrous.
I can't wait to see how this plays out.
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Sex
Okay, now that I have your attention....
Actually, I want to delve a little more in detail on a subject that I touched on a few posts ago. Namely, why is sex such a big issue among right-wingers?
I mentioned that several members of the Family Research Council had proclaimed that making the HPV vaccine mandatory was "sending teens the wrong message."
We're talking about a pro-life, pro-family organization which has it's knickers in a twist over a vaccine which could potentially protect the lives and fertility of thousands of women in the US alone every single year; for the simple reason that HPV is (in 92% of cases) sexually transmitted (those who object to the vaccine tend to studiously ignore the other 8%). They're particularly fond of parading HPV horror stories in front of Teenagers to terrorize them into the "Abstinence is the only option" message because unlike HIV or VD, Condoms are less effective in preventing it (to use baseball parlance; you don't need a home run; first base will do).
Give a Christian Conservative the choice between sex and death, and they'll choose death every single time. No sex for unmarried people, no HPV vaccines, no condoms for gays ('cause it's obviously better for them to get AIDS than to use a condom; God obviously never liked them anyway), no emergency contraception, no birth control pills, no abortions for anyone. When a 13-year-old girl in Florida (identified in the newspapers only as L.G.) was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy (at her doctor's suggestion), Christian soldiers rose to, quite literally, drag the girl kicking and screaming into the delivery room, tie her to the table and force her to undergo what I understand is an extremely painful process; and yes, I realize that there wouldn't have been much actual dragging, kicking or screaming involved, but I don't think I'm exaggerating by much here. Even when it was proven and accepted by the court that carrying the child to term had a threefold greater chance of killing both her and the child than the abortion would, they still insisted that the child had to be born. Pro-life my ass. Fortunately, a federal judge disagreed and allowed the abortion to proceed. The judge, specifically chosen for his conservative views, was labeled as an activist.
I think we can pretty much give up on the idea that the Pro-life, Pro-family end of the political spectrum has anything to do with the "life of the unborn" (setting aside, for the moment, whether the unborn actually is life). This is about sex; and more specifically, keeping sex firmly coupled to reproduction, at least as far as women are concerned. If they were truly protecting "the life of the unborn," they'd be handing out condoms at street corners, they'd be dishing out birth control pills and morning after pills en masse. They'd actually listen when more "liberal" (if you use the term loosely) elements of society suggest that the way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people on making sex safer. Instead of making emergency contraception available right next to the toothpaste (which, I can pretty much guarantee, would reduce the occurrence of abortion), they applaud pharmacists who refuse to fill out prescriptions, and doctors who don't tell rape victims about emergency contraceptives. And yet interestingly enough, while they may offer lip service to the "low" (actually over 95%, if used properly) effectiveness of condoms; for some reason they're not interested in reducing their availability in order to keep the boys chaste.
This isn't about abortion. This isn't even about reducing the number of abortions, this is about the possibility that (horror of horrors) sex could be fun. That's why they object to abortion, to any form of contraception other than abstinence, to same sex marriage, and to just about anything that could make sex less risky. If word got out that there are reasons for having sex that have nothing whatsoever to do with producing spawn, women could no longer be forced to assume the role that Christian conservatives seem to believe that they should: a brood mare for the state.
Now, I admit that I don't have much in the way of solid data to back this up. At best, this is a hypothesis; but you have to admit that there is a certain internal consistency in the suggestion that maybe this has less to do with abortion than it does forcing women to produce babies.
Actually, I want to delve a little more in detail on a subject that I touched on a few posts ago. Namely, why is sex such a big issue among right-wingers?
I mentioned that several members of the Family Research Council had proclaimed that making the HPV vaccine mandatory was "sending teens the wrong message."
We're talking about a pro-life, pro-family organization which has it's knickers in a twist over a vaccine which could potentially protect the lives and fertility of thousands of women in the US alone every single year; for the simple reason that HPV is (in 92% of cases) sexually transmitted (those who object to the vaccine tend to studiously ignore the other 8%). They're particularly fond of parading HPV horror stories in front of Teenagers to terrorize them into the "Abstinence is the only option" message because unlike HIV or VD, Condoms are less effective in preventing it (to use baseball parlance; you don't need a home run; first base will do).
Give a Christian Conservative the choice between sex and death, and they'll choose death every single time. No sex for unmarried people, no HPV vaccines, no condoms for gays ('cause it's obviously better for them to get AIDS than to use a condom; God obviously never liked them anyway), no emergency contraception, no birth control pills, no abortions for anyone. When a 13-year-old girl in Florida (identified in the newspapers only as L.G.) was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy (at her doctor's suggestion), Christian soldiers rose to, quite literally, drag the girl kicking and screaming into the delivery room, tie her to the table and force her to undergo what I understand is an extremely painful process; and yes, I realize that there wouldn't have been much actual dragging, kicking or screaming involved, but I don't think I'm exaggerating by much here. Even when it was proven and accepted by the court that carrying the child to term had a threefold greater chance of killing both her and the child than the abortion would, they still insisted that the child had to be born. Pro-life my ass. Fortunately, a federal judge disagreed and allowed the abortion to proceed. The judge, specifically chosen for his conservative views, was labeled as an activist.
I think we can pretty much give up on the idea that the Pro-life, Pro-family end of the political spectrum has anything to do with the "life of the unborn" (setting aside, for the moment, whether the unborn actually is life). This is about sex; and more specifically, keeping sex firmly coupled to reproduction, at least as far as women are concerned. If they were truly protecting "the life of the unborn," they'd be handing out condoms at street corners, they'd be dishing out birth control pills and morning after pills en masse. They'd actually listen when more "liberal" (if you use the term loosely) elements of society suggest that the way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people on making sex safer. Instead of making emergency contraception available right next to the toothpaste (which, I can pretty much guarantee, would reduce the occurrence of abortion), they applaud pharmacists who refuse to fill out prescriptions, and doctors who don't tell rape victims about emergency contraceptives. And yet interestingly enough, while they may offer lip service to the "low" (actually over 95%, if used properly) effectiveness of condoms; for some reason they're not interested in reducing their availability in order to keep the boys chaste.
This isn't about abortion. This isn't even about reducing the number of abortions, this is about the possibility that (horror of horrors) sex could be fun. That's why they object to abortion, to any form of contraception other than abstinence, to same sex marriage, and to just about anything that could make sex less risky. If word got out that there are reasons for having sex that have nothing whatsoever to do with producing spawn, women could no longer be forced to assume the role that Christian conservatives seem to believe that they should: a brood mare for the state.
Now, I admit that I don't have much in the way of solid data to back this up. At best, this is a hypothesis; but you have to admit that there is a certain internal consistency in the suggestion that maybe this has less to do with abortion than it does forcing women to produce babies.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Compassionate Conservatives
Am I the only one who's starting to think that one of the identifying characteristics of people who identify themselves as "compassionate conservatives" is a complete and total lack of compassion?
Recently, the Family Research council has denounced the possibility of vaccinating teenagers against two different strains of Human Papilloma Virus; which, combined, could prevent approximately 70% of all cervical cancer. This vaccine has the potential of saving the lives of 3700 women in the United States alone every single year; and the FRC has gone on record claiming that they don't want it offered to teenagers with their standard set of immunizations.
Why? Because HPV is sexually-transmitted. The FRC and Focus on the Family have both released statements voicing concerns that vaccinating teenagers could be the equivalent of telling them that it's okay to have sex. Neither have openly denounced it just yet, but neither wants the vaccine given to adolescents around 13 years of age; which happens to be exactly when it's most needed.
In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Reginald Finger, a former medical analyst for Focus on the Family said: "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe."
Now, maybe I'm a little nuts, but isn't that like saying "we should only sell bicycle helmets to people who are planning on riding their bikes into a brick wall?"
Now, interestingly enough, both Focus on the Family and the FRC have been very vocal in the Pro-Life end of the spectrum. Again, I stay out of that particular debate simply because I don't believe that it can be boiled down to a black/white, pro-life/pro-choice debate, but suffice it to say that they seem to think that allowing abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is tantamount to murder.
So why is potentially allowing thousands of women to face the possibility of death or infertility suddenly okay?
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the way to deal with it isn't to make abortion illegal, it's to educate the people who may potentially have them. Teach them about birth control; abstinence; teach them to be responsible for themselves sexually; and if they choose to have sex, make sure that they're safe about it.
But as far as they're concerned, that's no good, 'cause it still allows for the possibility that (gasp) people might actually have sex! So, they oppose just about anything that could make sex less risky: birth control pills; condoms; morning-after pills; HPV vaccines; I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you looked for it, they probably opposed use of Hepatitis vaccines too. As far as they're concerned, abstinence is the only option; which means that they're either seriously delusional, or they have their kids under 24-hour surveillance. The point is that if this vaccine is sending the "wrong message" - that we expect that they'll have sex - what's the "right message?" That we care more about their maidenhead than their lives? Why are those who are so adamant that abstinence is the only way to go so convinced that fear is the only way to promote abstinence? If not gettin' it before marriage is such a wonderful thing, it seems to me that the last thing you'll have to do is terrorize teenagers into not doin' it.
See, I really didn't get the reason why the far right wing have this unhealthy obsession with sex. They don't seem to want anybody havin' it. They oppose homosexuality; not because being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong, but because they might actually have sex with someone of the same sex. They preach abstinence, rather than promoting the teaching of responsible sexuality. The overwhelming message: SEX CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE! While flatly rejecting just about any medical advancement that goes even partway to ensuring that sex doesn't ruin their lives.
It wasn't until a friend of mine provided me with a rather brilliant hypothesis. It's so simple, so elegant, and rather beautiful in its simplicity.
They're not gettin' any; and what they're gettin', they're not enjoyin'.
I have to admit, I don't have any data to back this up. For all I know, they could spend their evenings banging the hell out of the local college football team; but you have to admit that there does seem to be a fair amout of sexual frustration inherent to the far-right. Seriously: what issue have they been more vocal about than sex? They're against homosexuality, but not against the idea that someone could be attracted to the opposite sex; they tend to focus on the act itself. They're not against people dating, they're just against the idea that the daters may be having sex in the process. They're not against sex after marriage; but they object to any kind of birth control being used. And they've gone to the point where they are so adamant that nobody have sex before marriage that they've endorsed so-called abstinence-only programs; tax-funded programs which promote abstinence, and only abstinence. How do they do it? You guessed it: fear mongering; even if that fear is completely unfounded. For example, contrary to research, these programs insist that "touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy," that "there's no such thing as 'safe' or safer' sex," and (this is my personal favorite) "loneliness, embarrassment, substance abuse, and personal disappointment can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." I hope I don't actually have to say this, but for the record, not one of these are supported in the least by any empirical data.
In short, the only reason why sex is really an issue is because the far right sees a need to make it one. Why, I'll never know. Guess there are a few things that even I don't get.
Recently, the Family Research council has denounced the possibility of vaccinating teenagers against two different strains of Human Papilloma Virus; which, combined, could prevent approximately 70% of all cervical cancer. This vaccine has the potential of saving the lives of 3700 women in the United States alone every single year; and the FRC has gone on record claiming that they don't want it offered to teenagers with their standard set of immunizations.
Why? Because HPV is sexually-transmitted. The FRC and Focus on the Family have both released statements voicing concerns that vaccinating teenagers could be the equivalent of telling them that it's okay to have sex. Neither have openly denounced it just yet, but neither wants the vaccine given to adolescents around 13 years of age; which happens to be exactly when it's most needed.
In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Reginald Finger, a former medical analyst for Focus on the Family said: "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe."
Now, maybe I'm a little nuts, but isn't that like saying "we should only sell bicycle helmets to people who are planning on riding their bikes into a brick wall?"
Now, interestingly enough, both Focus on the Family and the FRC have been very vocal in the Pro-Life end of the spectrum. Again, I stay out of that particular debate simply because I don't believe that it can be boiled down to a black/white, pro-life/pro-choice debate, but suffice it to say that they seem to think that allowing abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is tantamount to murder.
So why is potentially allowing thousands of women to face the possibility of death or infertility suddenly okay?
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the way to deal with it isn't to make abortion illegal, it's to educate the people who may potentially have them. Teach them about birth control; abstinence; teach them to be responsible for themselves sexually; and if they choose to have sex, make sure that they're safe about it.
But as far as they're concerned, that's no good, 'cause it still allows for the possibility that (gasp) people might actually have sex! So, they oppose just about anything that could make sex less risky: birth control pills; condoms; morning-after pills; HPV vaccines; I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you looked for it, they probably opposed use of Hepatitis vaccines too. As far as they're concerned, abstinence is the only option; which means that they're either seriously delusional, or they have their kids under 24-hour surveillance. The point is that if this vaccine is sending the "wrong message" - that we expect that they'll have sex - what's the "right message?" That we care more about their maidenhead than their lives? Why are those who are so adamant that abstinence is the only way to go so convinced that fear is the only way to promote abstinence? If not gettin' it before marriage is such a wonderful thing, it seems to me that the last thing you'll have to do is terrorize teenagers into not doin' it.
See, I really didn't get the reason why the far right wing have this unhealthy obsession with sex. They don't seem to want anybody havin' it. They oppose homosexuality; not because being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong, but because they might actually have sex with someone of the same sex. They preach abstinence, rather than promoting the teaching of responsible sexuality. The overwhelming message: SEX CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE! While flatly rejecting just about any medical advancement that goes even partway to ensuring that sex doesn't ruin their lives.
It wasn't until a friend of mine provided me with a rather brilliant hypothesis. It's so simple, so elegant, and rather beautiful in its simplicity.
They're not gettin' any; and what they're gettin', they're not enjoyin'.
I have to admit, I don't have any data to back this up. For all I know, they could spend their evenings banging the hell out of the local college football team; but you have to admit that there does seem to be a fair amout of sexual frustration inherent to the far-right. Seriously: what issue have they been more vocal about than sex? They're against homosexuality, but not against the idea that someone could be attracted to the opposite sex; they tend to focus on the act itself. They're not against people dating, they're just against the idea that the daters may be having sex in the process. They're not against sex after marriage; but they object to any kind of birth control being used. And they've gone to the point where they are so adamant that nobody have sex before marriage that they've endorsed so-called abstinence-only programs; tax-funded programs which promote abstinence, and only abstinence. How do they do it? You guessed it: fear mongering; even if that fear is completely unfounded. For example, contrary to research, these programs insist that "touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy," that "there's no such thing as 'safe' or safer' sex," and (this is my personal favorite) "loneliness, embarrassment, substance abuse, and personal disappointment can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." I hope I don't actually have to say this, but for the record, not one of these are supported in the least by any empirical data.
In short, the only reason why sex is really an issue is because the far right sees a need to make it one. Why, I'll never know. Guess there are a few things that even I don't get.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Bill C-38.
To a few people's surprise, I've been somewhat quiet on this issue for the last little while, even after the bill passed, I didn't write anything; largely because I considered that the end of the issue.
This happens to be an issue I believe in quite passionately; which, for some reason I can't really explain, seems to come as a surprise to a lot of people. Especially when they find out that a) I'm not gay (which, frankly, some people find a little too surprising), and b) I'm not married.
But, for the moment, let's consider the fact that very shortly same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in Canada.
For the bulk of Canadians, this will have absolutely no effect; in eight provinces and one territory, it's already legal. Of the remaining provinces, PEI was planning on making it legal anyway, and Nunavut already recognizes same-sex marriages performed outside its own borders; even if they're not performed there.
So, the only stronghold against same-sex marriage in Canada is the good ol' redneck province of Alberta. Our premier has promised to fight Bill C-38 tooth and nail to keep this "nonsensical bill" (his words, for the record) from becoming law in Alberta. Stephen Harper, who was elected overwhelmingly in a riding in Calgary, has sworn to make this an election issue in december; which means that he's basically planning on getting elected at least in part based upon the promise to be the first Prime Minister in history to use the Notwithstanding clause.
And in the middle of this huge maelstrom; which really shouldn't be an issue at all; we have my MP, Jim Prentice, a high-ranking member of the Conservative party who voted in favor of Bill C-38.
My interest in this bill is rather deeply personal, but not for the reasons one would expect.
It was with grave disappointment that I watched the US Federal election last November. While it was deeply saddening to see 51% of voters decide that a bible-thumping redneck moron was fit to run the country for another four years; much more disappointing was the fact that eleven states voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage within their respective borders.
I have yet to hear someone give a secular reason why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry. The closest anyone has ever come is that same-sex couples cannot have kids. What they fail to observe is that we do not force married couples to have a fertility test; we do not deny marriage certificates to sterile couples; and we do not declare any marriages which fail to produce offspring to be invalid. In short, from a legal perspective, getting married in no way requires the couple to bear children.
In other words, in a country which has written into its constitution the Separation of Church and State; a country which is supposed to have a secular government; a laws for which nobody has yet provided a secular basis were passed in eleven different states.
That is rather disappointing. More disappointing is the fact that in a country which announces itself to be the "land of the free" passed laws in eleven different states, whose only purpose was to limit the freedoms of a specific minority.
Canada didn't do that. Canada made same-sex marriage seem natural and healthy and logical. Granted, immediately after the bill passed, you had people in the streets screaming that the sky was going to fall and that civilization as we knew it was about to crumble; all because a single freedom had been extended to a small minority. A freedom which will affect nobody except for that minority in any measurable way. Ignoring, for the moment, that the sky has not yet fallen, the fact of the matter is that the extending on freedom to one's fellow man isn't something to be lamented. This is something to be celebrated.
While the US has been trying for years to get a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Canada legalized it in the political equivalent of overnight. While the US bowed down to pressure from the Religious Right Wing; Canada found a way to allow religious freedom and marital equality to exist side-by-side.
The US could learn a lesson or two from Canada.
I'm an American, and I approve this message.
This happens to be an issue I believe in quite passionately; which, for some reason I can't really explain, seems to come as a surprise to a lot of people. Especially when they find out that a) I'm not gay (which, frankly, some people find a little too surprising), and b) I'm not married.
But, for the moment, let's consider the fact that very shortly same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in Canada.
For the bulk of Canadians, this will have absolutely no effect; in eight provinces and one territory, it's already legal. Of the remaining provinces, PEI was planning on making it legal anyway, and Nunavut already recognizes same-sex marriages performed outside its own borders; even if they're not performed there.
So, the only stronghold against same-sex marriage in Canada is the good ol' redneck province of Alberta. Our premier has promised to fight Bill C-38 tooth and nail to keep this "nonsensical bill" (his words, for the record) from becoming law in Alberta. Stephen Harper, who was elected overwhelmingly in a riding in Calgary, has sworn to make this an election issue in december; which means that he's basically planning on getting elected at least in part based upon the promise to be the first Prime Minister in history to use the Notwithstanding clause.
And in the middle of this huge maelstrom; which really shouldn't be an issue at all; we have my MP, Jim Prentice, a high-ranking member of the Conservative party who voted in favor of Bill C-38.
My interest in this bill is rather deeply personal, but not for the reasons one would expect.
It was with grave disappointment that I watched the US Federal election last November. While it was deeply saddening to see 51% of voters decide that a bible-thumping redneck moron was fit to run the country for another four years; much more disappointing was the fact that eleven states voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage within their respective borders.
I have yet to hear someone give a secular reason why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry. The closest anyone has ever come is that same-sex couples cannot have kids. What they fail to observe is that we do not force married couples to have a fertility test; we do not deny marriage certificates to sterile couples; and we do not declare any marriages which fail to produce offspring to be invalid. In short, from a legal perspective, getting married in no way requires the couple to bear children.
In other words, in a country which has written into its constitution the Separation of Church and State; a country which is supposed to have a secular government; a laws for which nobody has yet provided a secular basis were passed in eleven different states.
That is rather disappointing. More disappointing is the fact that in a country which announces itself to be the "land of the free" passed laws in eleven different states, whose only purpose was to limit the freedoms of a specific minority.
Canada didn't do that. Canada made same-sex marriage seem natural and healthy and logical. Granted, immediately after the bill passed, you had people in the streets screaming that the sky was going to fall and that civilization as we knew it was about to crumble; all because a single freedom had been extended to a small minority. A freedom which will affect nobody except for that minority in any measurable way. Ignoring, for the moment, that the sky has not yet fallen, the fact of the matter is that the extending on freedom to one's fellow man isn't something to be lamented. This is something to be celebrated.
While the US has been trying for years to get a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Canada legalized it in the political equivalent of overnight. While the US bowed down to pressure from the Religious Right Wing; Canada found a way to allow religious freedom and marital equality to exist side-by-side.
The US could learn a lesson or two from Canada.
I'm an American, and I approve this message.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
On the Role of the Catholic Church in my Life
I got into a discussion with my significant other's family over the Gay Marriage issue. They're strongly Catholic, but they are also very strongly in favor of Gay marriage, so to some degree it wasn't so much a discussion as an agreement; but we did cover some very interesting ground in that chat.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Monday, January 31, 2005
And theyyyyyyy're off!
So, the religious groups in Canada are at arms about same-sex marriage, which comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody.
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.
Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.
I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.
One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.
Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.
Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.
There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.
One question: what power?
The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.
Second question: what power is being taken away?
The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.
So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.
What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.
And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.
Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.
I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.
One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.
Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.
Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.
There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.
One question: what power?
The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.
Second question: what power is being taken away?
The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.
So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.
What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.
And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Whew. That was a close one.
With the recent striking down of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the US senate, I must confess that some measure of my faith in the democratic process has been restored. Had it passed, I would have officially have lost all of it.
Now, again, I'm neither gay, nor married; so I speak to some degree from ignorance here, but I had a chat today with a (married) friend of mine who had the following to say when I asked him whether he felt that allowing homosexuals to marry devalued his marriage:
Marriage is about love. People form lifelong bonds because of love. Our society's fear comes from connecting sex to that. Some people have dogs, and love them, never have sex with them, but they provide companionship for their whole lives and never get married... but how is that different than companionship? The real thought process for me was this; it is a right of people to get married if they love each other. The church says you cannot do that, thus ignoring that the basis for marriage is lifelong partnership, usually solidified by love. Now, I can see how the church wants to maintain that it is the authoritative body on marriage, and I can even respect that from a "we were here first" standpoint - that argument, believe it or not, works for me.
He went on to say:
But marriage is now both a religious (NOT spiritual) status and a legal status. Unless the church wants to run the entire legal system (god, or whatever, help us!) they have to share that marriage is also a legal, secular attribute and therefore can be given to homosexuals. Now, if our legal institutions want to deny people of that ability, we might as well tell blacks to get back in our ktichens and make us food. All in all, I don't feel threatened at all by gay marriage, I think it would be great if ANY couple could be as happy, fulfilled and comitted as I (we) am (are).
My response: Amen, Brother
Seriously, he'd basically said (far more eloquently, it pains me to admit, than I could) exactly what I'd been trying to say for a very, very long time. What seems to have been lost in this whole issue is that at the end of the day marriage is about love, period. What we (and by "we," I mean everyone) need to realize is that love comes in all shapes and sizes. Parent-child, man-woman, I-mankind, and yes, man-man and woman-woman.
Love is about being a part of something greater than one's self. I attended a sermon on a Valentine's day a while back, wherein the preacher said something that has resonated with me for a long time (and considering the fact that I'm not religious, that's saying quite a bit). She said: "Look upon those you love in wonder, for you are looking at the face of God." Regardless of whether you happen to believe in God, isn't that really what we're all looking for? Gay, straight, whatever. I think we're all looking to be a part of something greater than ourselves. If someone happens to find that in the face of someone of the same gender, what right does the government, the church, or anyone, really, have to deny it to them?
Now, again, I'm neither gay, nor married; so I speak to some degree from ignorance here, but I had a chat today with a (married) friend of mine who had the following to say when I asked him whether he felt that allowing homosexuals to marry devalued his marriage:
Marriage is about love. People form lifelong bonds because of love. Our society's fear comes from connecting sex to that. Some people have dogs, and love them, never have sex with them, but they provide companionship for their whole lives and never get married... but how is that different than companionship? The real thought process for me was this; it is a right of people to get married if they love each other. The church says you cannot do that, thus ignoring that the basis for marriage is lifelong partnership, usually solidified by love. Now, I can see how the church wants to maintain that it is the authoritative body on marriage, and I can even respect that from a "we were here first" standpoint - that argument, believe it or not, works for me.
He went on to say:
But marriage is now both a religious (NOT spiritual) status and a legal status. Unless the church wants to run the entire legal system (god, or whatever, help us!) they have to share that marriage is also a legal, secular attribute and therefore can be given to homosexuals. Now, if our legal institutions want to deny people of that ability, we might as well tell blacks to get back in our ktichens and make us food. All in all, I don't feel threatened at all by gay marriage, I think it would be great if ANY couple could be as happy, fulfilled and comitted as I (we) am (are).
My response: Amen, Brother
Seriously, he'd basically said (far more eloquently, it pains me to admit, than I could) exactly what I'd been trying to say for a very, very long time. What seems to have been lost in this whole issue is that at the end of the day marriage is about love, period. What we (and by "we," I mean everyone) need to realize is that love comes in all shapes and sizes. Parent-child, man-woman, I-mankind, and yes, man-man and woman-woman.
Love is about being a part of something greater than one's self. I attended a sermon on a Valentine's day a while back, wherein the preacher said something that has resonated with me for a long time (and considering the fact that I'm not religious, that's saying quite a bit). She said: "Look upon those you love in wonder, for you are looking at the face of God." Regardless of whether you happen to believe in God, isn't that really what we're all looking for? Gay, straight, whatever. I think we're all looking to be a part of something greater than ourselves. If someone happens to find that in the face of someone of the same gender, what right does the government, the church, or anyone, really, have to deny it to them?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
