Charleen's been writing blog posts like crazy lately! She's been gently prodding me to post something so that she doesn't feel like she's completely taken over our blog. I mentioned something about the Bears the other day and she responded that it sounded like good blog material. *hint, hint, nudge, nudge* I just feel like all I have been writing about lately (when I've written something) has been football. Especially with the season starting in a month, I'll probably be writing a lot more about it, so I'd like to write about something else for a change.
It's an issue that's been in the news, in ads, and on facebook a lot lately. I've been trying to avoid posting about it in any form until I had really thought about what my opinion is. The issue is gay marriage. Now, I realize it's an issue that crops up in many different forms from politics and law to the boy scouts and even to advertising. I'm going to try to focus only on the law part in the interests of not making this post 10 pages long.
Should gay marriage be legalized across the entire US? In my opinion, the answer to this question is a simple yes. Now, if you haven't decided to boycott this blog, send me hate mail, or any other ridiculous reaction to someone sharing a personal opinion, I'll explain why.
For a long time, I was in the camp that thought that gay marriage should be legalized, but it should be called something other than marriage. I've always believed that gay couples who are committed to each other deserve the same legal rights as any other married couple. Tax breaks, insurance for significant other, etc... So the way I saw it, they could have something that legally gave them the same benefits but called something different (legal union, whatever) so that there would be no argument over the word marriage. I think there has been some argument over where the word "marriage" actually originated, but the point that really changed my view was atheists. Not their views, but the fact that an atheist man and woman can get married. A judge performs the ceremony and it has 100% nothing to do with religion. So, if one couple that specifically believes that there is no God can use the legal ceremony of marriage to gain the same legal benefits that religious couples can, why can't any other couple do the same? That line of reasoning really settled me on my opinion of the matter, because in my mind, there is no logical reason to offer that legal right to one couple and not to another.
Since I’m feeling generous today, I’ll make one last point. One argument I hear all the time is “God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.” To that I say, find me the part where God said that married couples get tax, insurance, and social security benefits and we’ll talk.
The topic of accepting gay marriage as a law is not a religious issue. It's being made into one, but it really shouldn't be. It is a civil rights issue. A gay couple has the right to live together if they want, to adopt children if they so choose, but they don't have the right to treat their partner as their spouse? Sounds like civil rights infringement to me. Feel free to respond and discuss. I love hearing different views on any subject as long as it’s civil and well-reasoned.