I've read everything my fellow bloggers have written this week and I feel the arguments have been made, the facts given and the Web sites noted. I wrote several weeks ago about my support of the judges' decision and why.
I am thrilled for Chuck and his husband, and knowing the reflective and thoughtful man he is, I wish them much joy.
Of course, as my fellow blogger, his column is a hard act to follow so I've had to revert to the philosophy major I once was, to examine the significance of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
As I tended the deaths of my parents, 13 years apart, I had ample time to reflect on what a person's life finally means, regardless of what they have achieved. In the end, what really matters is that one has loved and has been loved. How is it wrong to allow any citizens the right to publicly proclaim, sanctify and legitimize their love, giving their union the dignity it deserves?
When you've been a mother as long as I have (27 years) you learn to give up preconceptions, cut to the chase, and realize what really matters. I imagine there are a great number of mothers across California that breath easier, knowing that their child will have a partner to go through life with, in a legally recognized and culturally sanctioned commitment.
Chuck
from Escondido, CA
June 20, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Thanks for the good wishes and a great post, and especially for sharing the part about your parents. Loving and being loved is really what matters in the end, isn't it?
Trina Boice from Carlsbad
June 20, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Maybe people aren't really reading what I write. I said Love IS a beautiful thing. It's the most important thing. There is no anger here.
I never said hetero sex was boring or only for the purpose of procreating. The media likes to portray conservatives that way. Maybe they get missionaries confused with the missionary position.
Candace, you say you are religious. Does your God believe in right and wrong or is everything acceptable? I understand that a religious argument doesn't hold water for most liberals. Certainly not holy water. That's fine. No one has answered the secular question of where do we draw the line? If the CA Supreme Court says it's discriminating to prevent same-sex marriage then why wouldn't they also allow siblings to marry or threesomes or fathers and daughters? On what basis would they prevent those marriages? Or do you think those marriages should be allowed?
I said that changing the definition of marriage was putting us on a slippery slope. Where do you see it ending?
Chris
June 20, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Trina,
If I can jump in here...Your blog makes no logical argument against same-sex marriage - you simply express your moral standards and seem to suggest they should be the general standard. Your argument remains unchanged if we substitute race or ethnicity everywhere you mention homosexuals.
The real slippery slope is using anybody's religion or God as a standard for establishing law. The Mormon God originally commanded polygamy for some, but has since had a change of heart regarding the morality of threesomes, foursomes and in the case of Joseph Smith - 28-somes. Similarly, the Mormon God switched courses and came around to the idea of African Americans joining the Mormon Church with a revelation in1978. it might get complicated if the constitution had to change every time somebody's God handed down a new revelation.
I think every individual has an absolute right to follow the edicts of their religion or God - as long as does not violate the rights of others. As for marrying your brother - incest laws handle this quite adequately and fairly. As for marrying a goat - I think we can safely say a marriage license requires the agreement of at least two human beings. As for polygamy - you got me - I think consenting adults should be able to do what they want under their own roof as long as no harm is done. Though polygamy usually turns out to be a male tyranny - you don't see a lot of women dividing their time amongst husbands.
I too am religious, I too have a moral code and I like surfing - none of these things have anything to do with enforcing the Constitution.
Chris
Chris McConnell
June 20, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Trina,
If I can jump in here...Your blog makes no logical argument against same-sex marriage - you simply express your moral standards and seem to suggest they should be the general standard. Your argument remains unchanged if we substitute race or ethnicity everywhere you mention homosexuals.
The real slippery slope is using anybody's religion or God as a standard for establishing law. The Mormon God originally commanded polygamy for some, but has since had a change of heart regarding the morality of threesomes, foursomes and in the case of Joseph Smith - 28-somes. Similarly, the Mormon God switched courses and came around to the idea of African Americans joining the Mormon Church with a revelation in1978. it might get complicated if the constitution had to change every time somebody's God handed down a new revelation.
I think every individual has an absolute right to follow the edicts of their religion or God - as long as does not violate the rights of others. As for marrying your brother - incest laws handle this quite adequately and fairly. As for marrying a goat - I think we can safely say a marriage license requires the agreement of at least two human beings. As for polygamy - you got me - I think consenting adults should be able to do what they want under their own roof as long as no harm is done. Though polygamy usually turns out to be a male tyranny - you don't see a lot of women dividing their time amongst husbands.
I too am religious, I too have a moral code and I like surfing - none of these things have anything to do with enforcing the Constitution.
Trina Boice from Carlsbad
June 21, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Wow Chris. I'm surprised and sad to see you've resorted to Mormon bashing.
Chuck
from Escondido, CA
June 21, 2008 at 06:02 PM
Trina - After basing your opinion on this issue on your church's teaching, it seems a bit off to be upset when someone points out the inconsistent teachings of your church over time. Then again, you had the nerve to publicly suggest here that recognition of my marriage would enable pedophiles and bestiality, then turn around and congratulate me in private, so I'm not surprised pointing out inconsistencies is a sore subject.
Chris made a good and valid point directly pointing out the flaws in your logic and reasoning. Beyond that, several Christian demoninations and congregations have already embraced same-sex marriages, and I'm sure more will follow. Doctrine and dogma of the various Christian groups, as shown previously on issues like slavery, torture, racial intolerance, and the sun as the center of the universe, have changed over the last 2000 years, and to presume they will remain constant from this point forward would seem to be a very arrogant presumption.
Chris
June 21, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Trina,
If I'm misinformed on my history - please correct me, I'll own up to it. Accusing me of Mormon bashing is a personal attack and seems like too easy a dodge and refusal to address the subject at hand.
I think all religions, like people, like me - are prone to contradict themselves over time - Mormon or otherwise. My tone might have been a little too sharp - just like the sanctimony of your opinion was probably unintentional.
Still friendly,
Chris
Matthew C. Scallon
June 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM
@Candace Suerstedt: "I imagine there are a great number of mothers across California that breath easier, knowing that their child will have a partner to go through life with, in a legally recognized and culturally sanctioned commitment."
While I disagree with your position of the marriage amendment, I only take issue with the last part of the quoted statement.
As one-half of an interracial marriage (I'm Irish-American; my wife's Kenyan), there's nothing "culturally sanctioned" about my marriage, and, if you believe that changing the definition of marriage will give homosexual relationships a "culturally sanctioned commitment," you're in for a fool's errand, as I've said in other comments. Sure, the law allows my religion to marry us in a way that's in keeping with my religion's 2000-year-old teaching (mighty nice of the state of California to allow that), the law has not afforded us cultural sanction. We get stares, glares, and any bit of ugliness directed in our direction, all because we are an interracial couple. So much for that cultural sanction.
Now, even though we are on opposite sides, I can see many arguements which have far more validity than cultural sanction. Our culture does not accept my interracial marriage, and it's not going to accept their marriages, either.
Candace Suerstedt
June 25, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Trina,
I had wanted to stay out of the fray but several of your comments have perplexed me and I felt I must respond.
To begin with at no time did I "say I was religious." This is just something I would not say. I tend to be very private about my spiritual life and I certainly would not have used
it as a basis for publicly declaring my political beliefs since this is after all a political blog.
After much reflection, I have decided that a big part of dissention is because of semantics. The GOD of my understanding is God the Father Almighty, timeless and unchanging. It would seem blasphemous to ascribe petty human characteristics to The Creator. Thus I am given to understand that we must have a different understanding of the concept of God.
Another word I believe we have different semantic understanding of is the word "liberal." Your statement would imply that all "liberals" are godless people who have no participation in a spiritual life of any kind. I cannot imagine where you got such an idea. Historically, there have been many activists for social justice who have arisen out of a religious background. In fact, a great number of social activists were actually inspired by the teachings of Christ.
As a child I was curious about religions and how people ended up being Christians (Protestant and Catholic), or Jews or Muslims, or anything else. My plan was to visit all the different churches to see what they were like. Though I am still working on the list, I have covered a lot of ground. I was fortunate to have parents who let me explore; they would even drive me and drop me off at the various temples, mosques, cathedrals, meeting houses, and barely commented when I came home reeking of incense. I went on to study Eastern Religion as part of my degree in Philosophy, although Logic was also an important concentration for me. (One of my regrets is that Logic is not a required course in all Junior High Schools. What a different world we would have.)
Ultimately, what I have learned is that dogma is the enemy. When any dogmatic position prevents one from reaching out to understand fellow travelers through this world, it is destructive to our collective experience. I try to remember what I have learned when I am attacked by others who think I am some kind of threat to their way of thinking.
Believe as you wish; I simply ask that you not define me based on be unexamined perceptions.
Trina from Carlsbad
June 26, 2008 at 01:59 AM
Hi Candace,
My mistake. I thought I remembered you saying that you went to church, although I know you didn't mention which one. I agree that there is a difference between spirituality and religion! I've met people who go to church every week who have yet to internalize the teachings and apply them to their behavior. I also know people who never go to any church and yet are impressively spiritual. Like you, I'm fascinated with other religions and have attended a lot of different kinds of churches too.
In my experience, I've noticed that some people believe in a God who identifies commandments we are to abide by, while others believe in a God that simply hopes we love one another, requiring no specific behavior, ordinances, etc. That belief, whichever someone chooses, definitely colors a person's perspective of right and wrong, including whether or not there IS right and wrong. Interesting stuff.
