/dev/zero

It’s an election year. There’s lots of politicking going on.
My brother has been writting quite a bit on this subject the last few weeks. I’ve been wanting to make some observations of my own, but haven’t taken the time to sit and type it out. Since I’m sitting here with a laptop and no net connection, I have no distractions. (No trackbacks or other references right now, since I don’t have net access. I’ll edit later to fix that.)

Same-sex marriages have become a hot issue in the last few months. Vermont passed it’s “civil union” law. The Massachusetts supreme court declared same sex civil unions to be legal. Dubya announced his proposed constitutional amendment “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in the state of the union this year. The city of San Francisco has been issuing same-sex marriage licenses since just before Valentine’s Day, despite the passage 4 years ago by the voters of the state of California declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Lot’s have friends have been posting “Yay! San Francisco is sticking up for the rights of queer couples!” in their blogs. Arwen has posted a link to a friend who set up a donation system to send flowers to random couples waiting in line in San Francisco. At last check, it was up to over US$6,000.
Meanwhile there are some of us who aren’t quite so sure. I’m all for gay rights. Personally I think when it comes to consenting adults, with whom one chooses to have a relationship, romantic, sexual or otherwise, is entirely one’s own business and the state should keep it’s nose out of it. I support legislation that prevents discrimination baed on sexual orientation. One’s sexuality simply should not be a factor in hiring decisions, benefits, medical coverage, service at restaraunts, etc. I’m all for laws allowing for civil unions, or whatever term you want to give it, that gives the same legal status to a relationship between a homosexual couple as a relationship between a heterosexual couple. It should be the right of every person to decide for themselves who should inherit their estate upon death and be the beneficiary of their life insurance policy, who has the right to visit them in the hospital, to include their lover under the spousal provisions of their health coverage plan, etc.
I think society needs to seperate the word “marriage” from the concept of a committed relationship between two people (some would argue, “between people”, but I won’t go that far.) The concept of spousal benefits is a legal construct. “Marriage” is not. Marriage is a societal / religious concept. The state has no business defining what is and is not a “marriage”. They have no business defining who can “marry” whom.
My good friend Stav wrote an excellent defense of regligious beliefes on the subject. Not so much defending any specific religious viewpoint on the subject of homosexuality, but rather, defending the idea of HAVING a viewpoint based on one’s spiritual values.