I am shocked and appalled at the outcome of Amendment 2 and 8 in Florida and California, especially given the resounding appeal for CHANGE that America voted for on Tuesday. It leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems with our politics today is that the wording on the most simple issues on ballots are written completely outside the realm of normal human understanding.
An article I read in the Sun Sentinel, reviewing the outcome of Amendment 2, stated that the results showed that the voters firmly believed in marriage. SERIOUSLY? Wasn’t that what amendment 2 and 8 are all about? Gays firmly believe in marriage, and they should be allowed to experience a legal commitment to each other, to stand strong together for their lives, to share fully in each other, to love, honor, cherish, and protect each other, to stand for the betterment of each other, to support each other in good times and bad – what about this is NOT marriage?
Republicans purport to stand for less government – yet, they are meddling in issues that should be between a human being and their GOD. Who we choose to commit our lives to should certainly NOT be an issue of government.
If we voted such a resounding vote for change – why is change good for some and not for others? We just voted a non-white, non-military male into the White House, but we cannot give Gays the right to share in each others lives? Why should anyone who voted for change be given the right to enjoy change, but to take it away from others? These amendments were not fought for, for anything above what we as hetero humans enjoy, but simply for EQUAL rights for their sexual preference. Who are WE to take that away?
I’m a fairly aware, intelligent human being. But I had to sit there for hours before filling out my absentee ballot last week, researching exactly what the wording of every amendment meant. I’m convinced that a strong majority of YES voters on Amendment 2 voted YES – to GIVE the power to marry in Florida, not to take away the rights. It is completely beyond me how we can be so open minded to change and empower those less powerful, but to take away the rights from someone to commit themselves to another.
We need more love in this world. We need more people working together. Love is a human need, and the more love we create in the world, the more love abounds. We have no right to pass judgment on an issue that is between humans and God. God created marriage, not government. God should be the only one allowed to pass judgment on what is marriage and what is not. Government should give EACH HUMAN the right to choose ONE PERSON to share their lives, benefits, and property with. That is all they should have the right to govern.
Shame on us, America. Shame on us.
Great blog, Cantor Ballard.
In addition to the poor wording of the amendments, I believe that the arguments presented both for and against gay marriage often miss the boat.
I suspect that most people, if presented with logical argument regarding holding gay couples to the responsibilities of marriage (rather than feeling like they are somehow giving people a perk of which they are not deserving), regarding the portions of the bible that we discard every day due to the world having evolved and the fact that human beings (flawed by definition) direct us which to accept and which to reject, and regarding the possible positive impact to our economy (just think about all the florists, hotels, stationery stores, musicians, travel companies and, unfortunately, divorce attorneys that would make money on the deal), might alter their antiquated opinions.
Food for thought! Thanks for your very meaningful commentary.
Hey Ronin! So good to hear from you! I’ve been thinking about you, and reading your updates as often as possible.
You are sadly correct, and I think one of these days, I just might come visit you on that island, and maybe find my own spot!
Stay well, and in Peace,
Debbi
Hi Debbi,
I suspect that the meat of this conflict goes far beyond “public outcry.” Numerous industries (like insurance companies, for example) have quietly made it clear to politicians that they aren’t in favor of ANY legislation that will reduce their profits.
Making “marital families” out of these unions would qualify them for insurance at “discounted” premiums, and cause insurance companies to take the matter to court, to further define the actual “outcome.”
Large corporations offer married employees additional benefits (like maternity leave, for example) that would have to be extended to these unions, and effect their companies bottom lines.
Additionally, we live in a predominantly Christian society, that seems to be getting more vocal, as the economy, and social structure of this nation fall into decline. This “fundamentalist” view is going to make ANY advances in society difficult.
All that being said, the politicians responsible for keeping their (muddied) hands on the switch wil surely follow the money, and the votes of the majority. We can count on more ambiguous political mumbo-jumbo…
You know, as things get more and more ridiculous, that dream I’ve been having lately about living on a small deserted island is starting to look better and better…
Glad to see that you’re doing well!
Ronin