Breaks and vacations always mess up my blogging Chi. A week with my tribe turns into two weeks off of the grid. I sped to my coffee shop this morning to force my self to sit down and let it all out. I am in a gay mood and so this morning Realism will take on the issue of gay marriage. Since the supreme court has been handed this social hot potato, let's see who we can offend or challenge as I like to say.
Do I care if an adult wants to sleep with someone of the same sex, yes and no. If they are consenting and not infringing on any of my rights and freedoms l, I could care less. If the gay movement as a whole is attempting to influence society in general to endorse an emotion, we have a problem. A very profound question I heard yesterday and I was listening to numerous talks came from a local Dallas host. The host asked the lesbian lady asking for support of gay marriage why she felt gay marriage should be considered constitutional? The teacher posed issues of inheritance and health insurance and other benefits provided for married couples and not to gay partners. Realism supports civil unions. Any persons who are adults and willing to enter into an agreement to take care of one another should be provided with the opportunity to share their benefits with the person they declare their mate. Civil unions provide for a safe legal structure for inheritance, property rights and benefits in an orderly fashion.
The host agreed that civil unions should be the way to go for society in general. Then the lady stated that she should be allowed to marry whoever she loves. The host asked, "why should the state be involved with regulating emotions"? The poor caller stammered and stuttered not being able to answer the question. Why should we regulate emotion? Should the supreme court of the United States begin to create into the constitution a right to feel a certain way? Surprisingly the question came from Justice Sotomayor. If the states are not allowed to regulate marriage as an institution, what or where are the limits? Is polygamy permissible? Incest? The states have laws that are constitutional concerning the marriage or procreation between close relatives to protect the gene pool and the fetus. Do these disappear with the approval of gay marriage? Sotomayor has a point, the slippery slope. The state in Realism has ever right to protect the genetic potential of it's future citizens. There are scientific studies that show the potential harm genetically and psychologically to a child of incest or close relation. If the supreme court rules for gay marriage, does it not also cease to protect the promotion of the institution of marriage to create future citizens to perpetuate the state? Without outside assistance a male or female gay couple cannot procreate. The gay couple does not naturally further the state. Yes we do have advances in the ability of these unions to conceive using surrogates or donors, however how long could the state last if this became the norm?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what the state says it will provide. Can a gay couple pursue happiness without the society sanctioning it's union as marriage? The answer is yes with civil unions. Would civil unions give them the liberty to protect and provide for their partners? Yes. Would civil unions allow gay couples to live their lives and be the most productive citizens they can be, sure. We are slowly erroding the ability of citizens of each state to determine what they feel is beneficial. Let each state decide if they feel gay marriage is appropriate for it's citizens as did California. We have to remember that even though we may not look like it lately, on paper we are a republic and republics give each state the right to self-determination.
No comments:
Post a Comment