So the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) promises to rule on same gender marriage.
Don't get excited about this one way or another. As SCOTUS reporter for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg puts it, "Less expected was the court's decision to review California's ban on
same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8. That case potentially could
lead to a decision on whether gay couples have a constitutional right to
Key word potentially.
In other words, they waffle more than a short order cook on Sunday morning.
The Granola State ban is on gay marriage etc etc etc etc.
I submit (again) the real decision here is: Is marriage a government function or a religious function?
You can wade through the blogs and read previous postings by me on this subject.
Anyway, I have some questions for both sides, after one brief aside,
one exception all the arguments I've heard against same gender marriage
are religious. The sole exception, by a gent who was far too smart for
his own good (and I mean that exactly the way I say it) said he objected
because it meant the end of the human race. He said same gender couples
cannot reproduce. Tru Dat, but his argument implied everyone would
start batting for the same side. See above explanation and parenthetical
As for those who argue on religious grounds, I ask the following:
Do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people?
oooooooooooo. Yeah I did.
I get a hesitant "No" to that question when I ask it in person. How about you?
In person, I then ask, OK, what if their religious beliefs allow same gender marriage?
get a face full of Biblical scriptures. Among the more rabid, I get
denunciations and comments about hellfire, damnation and so forth,
stopping just short of calling for a pogrom.
Islam ain't the only religion with extremists.
about you? If you believe you should not force your religious beliefs
on other people, then how can you stop two people of adult age from
marrying each other regardless of their gender?
the same questions of those who support same gender marriage is a bit
trickier. First, the question of marriage as a government function or a
religious function must be asked.
If religious, then it's a whole 'nother ball of CnH2n+2.
If the religion allows same gender marriage, then I shut up. If the
religion will not allow same gender marriage, then I ask: Do you
have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people? On this
one, at least, SCOTUS has ruled decisively - Adherents to a religion
cannot be forced to perform rituals which violate their religious
The same questions can be asked of both sides
if marriage is a function of government. To wit: Should the majority
rule? Does the minority have a right to protection under the law? How
far does that extend?
Perhaps this is a bit simplistic,
but I'm judiciously applying Occam's Razor in a slightly different
fashion to pare this down. Should the people be allowed to run the
government or should
government run the people?
Rephrasing, do you have the right to force your beliefs on other people?