elton, and ellen, and rupaul, oh my!
it's just about time for us to come out of the wood-work and decide the future of the free world. i bet you didn't know that much pressure was on your shoulders; but, it is.
america is overly concerned about homosexuals. i hear they are different from us and we need to decide what to do with them. and decide what they are allowed to do with themselves. in two weeks (8 nov) we texans will be called to the polls to decide the outcome of several propositions. the proposal getting the most publicity these days is proposition 2. proposition 2 -if passed- would allow for the creation of an amendment to the texas constitution that would definitively state that marriage (as defined by the state of texas) is a union between one man and one woman. sorry, homos - one of each. sorry rulon jeffs and flds- ONLY one of each. sorry aggies -both parties must be human (no farm animals.) never mind that so-called same sex marriage is already illegal in texas. apparently, laws on the books aren't what they once were. they aren't enforced strictly enough and are given to too much interpretation. the electorate generally doesn't come out in a non- presidential/non- gubernatorial election cycle, but i expect the turnout to be very high. as i said, we're pretty concerned about these folks and lots of people will feel the need to express themselves.
i am sorry to say that i am undecided as to where my vote will end up being cast. as always, there are two sides in my purview.
the religion i profess is very conservative. it is the doctrine of our religion that homosexuals must repress the desires in their bodies and hearts and remain virtuous. one is not allowed to have sexual relations with anyone to whom the one is not married. gay couples aren't legally allowed to marry, so you do the math. homosexuality is expressly forbidden in the bible; and as such, it is not the place for us to redefine the will of God. supporters of these amendments (nation-wide) cite the need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage." how much sanctity can an institution contain when half of all these arrangements dissolve into divorce? when one can legally enter and annul such a relationship -while intoxicated- all in the course of one weekend (britney spears, et al.) or when the legal and religious authorities performing said ritual are vested with only enough authority to assure the marriage until "death do you part." how sacred is something not recognized by Diety for longer than 50 or 60 years? my church is rarely involved in supporting political movements. i can think of only one other time in the history of this church when the church, itself, requested that its members vote for or against any political measure. they feel strongly enough about this issue to inform the members as to the church's official position ,and request that we vote accordingly.
on the other hand, we're not talking about religion here, we're talking government - a civil arrangement that will allow all people the financial and legal rights afforded to the married class. joint property-ownership, child protection, estate planning, and health benefits are only a few of the arenas in which gays in america are on an unbalanced plane. many of my friends are gay ; and, i would think they would be able to have every opportunity i am afforded as a straight man. this is the "land of opportunity." are we not all "created equal" with certain "inalienable rights?" where do the constitution or declaration cite homosexuals as exempt from the "blessings of liberty?" don't get me wrong. given to consideration, the highly religious founding brothers would probably have gone jerry falwell on the subject. they couldn't even decide if a black man was a real person, or just a little more than half of one. but, they made no exceptions. all seem to be guaranteed these rights.
i hope to think that my marriage would be no less sacred just because adam and steve are married by a preacher of some religion i consider to be inadequate, anyway. what difference do they make in MY life? none. i don't really care what they do, just as i don't care what you do with the person you love, dear reader. all i can hope for is that we all find someone to love, hold that person close to us, and love that person for the rest of our time together. we should all be as lucky.
as for my vote. i still don't know.. i believe in "live and let live" and am , generally pro-choice across the board. if you stay out of my home and life, i promise to remain out of yours. on the other hand, i find it pretty difficult to believe i would vote in contrast to the explicit counsel of my chosen religious leaders. i guess i have two weeks to decide.
america is overly concerned about homosexuals. i hear they are different from us and we need to decide what to do with them. and decide what they are allowed to do with themselves. in two weeks (8 nov) we texans will be called to the polls to decide the outcome of several propositions. the proposal getting the most publicity these days is proposition 2. proposition 2 -if passed- would allow for the creation of an amendment to the texas constitution that would definitively state that marriage (as defined by the state of texas) is a union between one man and one woman. sorry, homos - one of each. sorry rulon jeffs and flds- ONLY one of each. sorry aggies -both parties must be human (no farm animals.) never mind that so-called same sex marriage is already illegal in texas. apparently, laws on the books aren't what they once were. they aren't enforced strictly enough and are given to too much interpretation. the electorate generally doesn't come out in a non- presidential/non- gubernatorial election cycle, but i expect the turnout to be very high. as i said, we're pretty concerned about these folks and lots of people will feel the need to express themselves.
i am sorry to say that i am undecided as to where my vote will end up being cast. as always, there are two sides in my purview.
the religion i profess is very conservative. it is the doctrine of our religion that homosexuals must repress the desires in their bodies and hearts and remain virtuous. one is not allowed to have sexual relations with anyone to whom the one is not married. gay couples aren't legally allowed to marry, so you do the math. homosexuality is expressly forbidden in the bible; and as such, it is not the place for us to redefine the will of God. supporters of these amendments (nation-wide) cite the need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage." how much sanctity can an institution contain when half of all these arrangements dissolve into divorce? when one can legally enter and annul such a relationship -while intoxicated- all in the course of one weekend (britney spears, et al.) or when the legal and religious authorities performing said ritual are vested with only enough authority to assure the marriage until "death do you part." how sacred is something not recognized by Diety for longer than 50 or 60 years? my church is rarely involved in supporting political movements. i can think of only one other time in the history of this church when the church, itself, requested that its members vote for or against any political measure. they feel strongly enough about this issue to inform the members as to the church's official position ,and request that we vote accordingly.
on the other hand, we're not talking about religion here, we're talking government - a civil arrangement that will allow all people the financial and legal rights afforded to the married class. joint property-ownership, child protection, estate planning, and health benefits are only a few of the arenas in which gays in america are on an unbalanced plane. many of my friends are gay ; and, i would think they would be able to have every opportunity i am afforded as a straight man. this is the "land of opportunity." are we not all "created equal" with certain "inalienable rights?" where do the constitution or declaration cite homosexuals as exempt from the "blessings of liberty?" don't get me wrong. given to consideration, the highly religious founding brothers would probably have gone jerry falwell on the subject. they couldn't even decide if a black man was a real person, or just a little more than half of one. but, they made no exceptions. all seem to be guaranteed these rights.
i hope to think that my marriage would be no less sacred just because adam and steve are married by a preacher of some religion i consider to be inadequate, anyway. what difference do they make in MY life? none. i don't really care what they do, just as i don't care what you do with the person you love, dear reader. all i can hope for is that we all find someone to love, hold that person close to us, and love that person for the rest of our time together. we should all be as lucky.
as for my vote. i still don't know.. i believe in "live and let live" and am , generally pro-choice across the board. if you stay out of my home and life, i promise to remain out of yours. on the other hand, i find it pretty difficult to believe i would vote in contrast to the explicit counsel of my chosen religious leaders. i guess i have two weeks to decide.
posted by cm at 10/24/2005
<< Home