Sunshine and Rainbows...

So I’ve touched briefly on this subject before and I’m not shy about revisiting it and expressing my views on it.  (And of course poking at the general close-mindedness of those against it. I think that's my favorite part...) I’m not saying that everyone against it is wrong to be so, but on that same note I haven’t heard of a reason to be against it that wasn’t rooted in some fundamentally flawed translation and interpretation of a Bible passage. Nine times out of ten, they can't give any other reason.

Here, Matthew Vines breaks it down fairly well (ok, really damn well, he took time off from his college to study this) and this really deserves more publicity: The Bible and Homosexuality. He does a really good job of going through each point and line of scripture that is used time and again.

The other one out of ten times they point to the biological side of things. Which, really? It hurts us how? The heterosexual side of the population produces more offspring than they know what to do with already. I would think that those not procreating are helping just as much as those that are. And some of them are more than willing to give loving, safe homes to the children that remain without a stable home life for one reason or another.

But lets jump the rails and move more towards the actual political side of things.

Prop 8 and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) are before the Supreme Court this week (if you haven't heard this, where have you been hiding?), and apparently they're afraid of making broad, sweeping rulings (Baker, Supreme Court appears reluctant to issue broad gay-marriage ruling). Really?  Isn't that sort of, you know, your job? I understand that we're still feeling some of the backlash from Roe v. Wade, but that didn't stop you guys then. So what's the problem now? (I admittedly may not understand all of the interstices and in stuff, so maybe a little more investigation is in order.)

There's some speculation (Hogarth, Prop 8 Likely to be Repealed Narrowly; Court Hears DOMA Today) that the Justices may just dismiss the Prop. 8 case, which keeps it overturned in California by default, but affects no other state. There's also some speculation that they may actually give a ruling, but limit it to just California.

Ok, so they can not step in it when it comes to Prop 8 by avoiding that pile completely, but DOMA, that one is just way too big. There's no side-stepping it. Its denying equal protection under the law, for those in state (and in some cases country) recognized same-sex unions. While only half of DOMA is being challenged, it has sweeping consequences. Though, maybe the Supreme Court will rule that the House of Representatives don't have a leg to stand on in defending DOMA when those involved in the writing and signing of it into law have all repealed it, saying it should be struck down. Its still too early to let out that "Victory!" cry yet. (Soooooooon.)

Overall, it is looking like things will swing to the favor of equality, though not on as grand a scale as some are really hoping for. Just remember: Baby steps. =) We all know it'll get there in the next 20 years. Probably sooner. I think we're really just waiting on some of the legislatures to ah... age out. <.< Besides, patience is a virtue.

Imagine how good for the economy all those marriages between men will be for the states that allow them when they're accepted on a federal level~ We all know that they have the best, most expensive tastes. ;)

A Ray of dim Hope...

In Donna Red Wing's blog post The Bipartisan/Nonpartisan Push for Marriage Equality there shines a dim light of hope that even the Republicans are coming around to this whole same sex marriage thing.

Rather than the typical posts I've seen lately where they seem rather fatalistic and negative, this one is realistic, and a tad uplifting. Given the source she posted this blog to, her work is tended towards the more Liberal among us in a "hey, we're not dancing out here alone~!" It effectively gets the message across of the support that is coming in from both sides now, but still that there's some work to be done. It even links to another article written by a Republican and his reasons for signing onto the amicus against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Ofcourse, she also states Iowa as the state that starts the ripples outwards, though has given no examples of where this has been the case, which I would actually be quite interested in reading if this were indeed true and not just an excellent bit of imagery, wishful thinking, and hyperbole.

Overall though, the article itself is well constructed and carries its dance metaphor well and through to the end of the article.

Clearly, I'm all for this whole same-sex marriage thing, just because I think it's stupid that just because you love differently means you can't have the same benefits (and drawbacks, thank you Community Property States). I just hope that when the states do start coming around that those seeking same-sex marriages remember that Churches do not have to let you have the ceremony on their premises. And no, suing to make them will (or rather should) do no good.

Remember that little thing called the separation of church and state? Yea, that thing. Just because the states allow you to have all the same benefits of a traditional marriage, doesn't mean that the churches will recognize it. They're effectively private organizations, and may still deny you the use of their property and ministry. Be nice, thank them for their time, and then go find another Church that may allow you to use their property, or, better yet, have a friend get ordained online and have a nice ceremony in your backyard~ That sounds so much nicer. Who wants to have their ceremony in the house of those that have forsaken them for so long anyways? Really? It would only be out of spite and no way to start such a union between two people.






And on a completely unrelated note at all, I just wanted to pint this beauty of a post out: Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights Yea... No comments necessary. ;)