Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

wow, yeah I agree. I have a lot of the same religious beliefs as the people who voted even in my own state to " define marriage" yet I do not belief that it needs to be secularly defined or redefined or defended. Nor do I believe that it needs to have the sanctity of it "preserved". Marriage as a religious institution IS sacred and has sanctity...period regardless of what anyone believes or what the state will or won't recognize. Therefore such legislation is not about defending faith. I believe it to be about hatred and the ability to feel like you are someone better than or entitled to better than someone else.

I feel it is, actually, hypocritical of our nation to sit there on one hand and scream at the top of its lungs about this ( also bogus in more ways than I care to lecture about at the moment in my humble opinion ) idea of the separation of church and state and what it supposedly means but yet whenever it is convenient we ( as a collective nation ) turn around and drag selected religious views right into the world of state, politics and legality.

If marriage were ONLY a religious institution then I have absolutely no problem with any religion defining it any way that they want regardless of how I feel because we are free in this country to practice our religions any way that we want as long as our expression of it does not harm anyone else or suppress the rights of others but it is NOT only a religious matter. It is a matter of civil contract and legislation and, since our country has decided on far too many occasions to count, that religious preference and bias of any kind have no place in our legal system, government and public life in general I feel it is simply unacceptable to force an ecclesiastic issue into being a secular one.

Everyone in this country deserves equal protection under the law whether as individuals or as groups or as couples. Period. It should not be legal for anyone to be marginalized or oppressed who is not harming or endangering someone else by their actions. We are talking about denying people civil rights based on religious views and that is wrong. Civil Rights and Ecclesiastical Rites/Regulations are two completely separate things. Marriages in this country, on this planet are not in danger because gay people are vocalizing the wish to have the same civil rights as people who are straight. Marriages between men and women are falling apart because people lie to each other and cheat on one another and put others before their families or have drug, alcohol and sexual addictions, or because people rape their children and spouses, beat each other, can't keep a job, do not respect and listen to each other, fall out of love with one another....the reasons are endless but none of the reasons why marriages are in trouble have to do with the fact that Mark and Paul love each other and now have the legal right to make medical and legal decisions for each other in the event that one or the other can't decide for themselves. No straight person I ever met got divorced because Linda and Susan adopted a child who nobody loved and cared for and have it a loving home nor has any family gone to hell in a handbasket because the trannies down the road can now share a bank account without the red tape of having to form a bogus corporation first.

Families and marriages between one man and one woman will not magically be stronger because gay people are denied civil rights. Get real.

Not to mention the fact that either way, gay people can STILL have most of the legal protections that married people can have even if people vote negatively until the world ends. There is not much that can't be gained anyways except the right to adopt children but then again...gay people can still just have their own natural children via artificial insemination, in vitro, and willing partners of the opposite sex doing it the old fashioned way. If they want to be able to make medical decisions for each other just sign medical surrogate forms stating that the other is the only person authorized to make medical decisions for them, take it to a notary and BAM medical protections. Joint bank accounts are not illegal regardless of marital or familial relationship and property ownership issues can be resolved by putting mutual property in both of the people's names. Power of attorney takes care of being able to make legal decisions so really..voting to keep someone's relationship unrecognized doesn't mean they can't do the same things you can do. It just means that it gives someone a reason to have a puffed up chest and think that they have some sort of advantage over someone else.

Okay, I guess I am done talking but yeah...I think I am the only person in my family who voted against the definitions of marriage junk that was on the ballot here. I just see it as useless and fueled by bigotry and hypocrisy. I know and love people who disagree and will never fight them about it because its not worth it but yeah....just my two cents.