Last login: Monday, August 22, 2011
I was surprised that nowhere in the debate on the 'Editors Roundtable' was the Mormon support of Prop 8 noted or their history relating to 'one man/one woman' marriage. It seems ironic that Utah which gave the most 'outside the state contributions' still has an almost openly polygamist population apparently un-bothered by the state. So many of the opponents of same gender marriage keep bringing up the argument that marriage has historically been between one man and one woman. That seems to ignore the history of many multi-wife marriages in the bible, in the world (both past and present), and the Mormon community (past and present).
Second point: Why is it that California allows a proposition to Amend the Constitution to pass with a simple majority. But once enacted it then requires a 2/3 majority to remove it? I did not hear this discussed or even noted at all by the 'Editors' or Ms Penner.
Third point: My wife's Great Aunt was un-married after caring for her parents until she was well into her middle years. After her parents died she shared her house with a somewhat younger fellow 'old maid school teacher.' She and Helen lived together in that house for over 30 years, platonic for all anyone ever knew. In their latter years Helen cared for my wife's great aunt - "for richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and health, 'til death did they part." But because they were not biologically related nor married, the hospital would not divulge any medical information to Helen, nor allow her make any decisions at the end, nor even to visit (relatives only for critical patients). Then the State of Massachusetts took over the entire estate since there was no will, with no recognition of the fact that for the first 20 years they shared in the upkeep and maintenance of the house and gardens and for at least the final ten years Helen alone physically maintained the property. Helen was out in the cold. If ever there were a true permanent relationship (Marriage), that was it. So why are people so upset about allowing that kind of relationship to be a marriage? Sure was more permanent and met the marriage vows better that the majority of Prop 8 Supporter Newt Gingrich's marriages.
Last point: I don't see where the clergy of any religion has to marry anyone. They can continue to marry only those heterosexual couples they want. But they shouldn't have a veto on others' choices.
August 7, 2010 at 10:46 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2015 KPBS Public Broadcasting