Rambling (Today's Links Are Below)

(I started this entry with the idea that I’d write about the loosening of moral and ethical standards in society in light of a recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. As I wrote, it evolved into a something unexpected. Forgive me, but it’s more a stream-of-conscious, thoughts-on-paper kind of thing with no clear direction. Sorry!)

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently issued an opinion clarifying their landmark November ruling that said denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. The idea of gay marriage has sharply divided supporters and detractors, especially in battleground states like Massachusetts.

In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney expressed his dismay at the decision. Here are a few of his comments…

“Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

“Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

“Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination…

“It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.”

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines marriage as, “(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage ”

I may fall out of the mainstream conservative crowd when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. I’ve had the opportunity to know a few people living so-called “alternative lifestyles”, and personally I’m convinced that their sexuality was not a matter of choice. This is just who they are. I never made a conscious choice to be “straight”, it’s just who I am.

Why should we prevent people who love each other from expressing that love in a committed manner? Frankly, we should not. First, it is truly no one’s concern but the two persons in question. Second, in a world where commitments seem to mean less and less, if two people are truly willing to commit to each other we should honor them for it (regardless of gender).

Do I believe the traditional rights and benefits that married couples receive (spousal benefits, social security, etc.) also carry over to same sex unions? I want to say no, but that’s where I run into problems. In discussing this issue with Shannon, I wasn’t able to adequately defend my feelings. Governor Romney is correct: marriage is a universal social institution. As a lover of history, I am hard-pressed to say that such a concept needs to change after thousands of years. I’m also unable to accept the discrimination argument put forth by some homosexuals. Sometimes we have to accept things we don’t like, rather than arguing that someone is trying to oppress us because we can’t have everything our way. (Great argument, huh?)

I think an ideal solution, which is easy to offer up since I’m not directly affected, would be to allow civil unions, be they hetero- or homosexual, but not civil marriage. Allow the benefits of marriage to be conferred on these unions, but keep the understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman. If gay couples want the benefits, this should be perfectly acceptable to them. If it's just the word "marriage" that they want to apply to their union, that's different. This solution would allow traditional couples who don't choose to marry to still enjoy the same benefits of their married counterparts.

These arguments are so polarizing, how can we possibly find a settlement that most people on both sides can accept?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY'S LINKS

From Greenville, SC a man on a bicycle outruns policeman in patrol car.


If you thought gay marriage was a touchy subject, how about interspecies marriage.


Again from Greenville, SC... Man tries to rob liquor store boldly pretending that his hand is a gun.