A blog focusing on politics in Central Illinois.

Monday, February 28, 2005

We got gay friends in the red states part 2

Well now that I know we have a visitor of whom I have a bit of a disagreement with I would like to bring it back up. Rep. Mitchell - R Forsyth is the sponsor of HJRCA0001 which is a state consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Although this admendment has no chance of going anywhere, it is great political grandstanding. Before going any farther I will echo my statement to Rep. Mitchell, I respect you, but I disagree with you. Now for my disagreement,.
The idea of banning gay marriage disgusts me. It is a very simple idea, and there is no justification to ban it. There are at least a few arguments against it which I would like to take a moment to discuss.
  1. It's against my religous beliefs, or it's a sin, or it's immoral etc. Well I hate to break the news to you but there is an idea that is known as majority rule, minority rights. Even though gays may be in the minority they still have the basic human rights as any other person. Even if it is a sin, can any of truly say you are without sin, it isn't up to you to judge, that is up to your God, and if you truly believe it is a sin and they will be judged by God. At that point it is there problem not your problem.. It is immoral, I'm sorry but I dont want to go into anybodys bedroom and tell them what is moral and what is immoral, because you know what, it is none of my damn business as long as it is two consenting adults that are causing no harm to anyone or anything else. I don't understand how people can say the government can't tell me what gun i can own, but can tell me who i can marry.
  2. If we let this go, then what is next bestiality, incest, or worst, a.k.a. the Santorum argument. If we let gay marriage exist then nothing is next, marriage between two gay people is simply that, a marriage that doesn't harm anyone else. There are victims of incest, there are victims in bestiality, there are not victims of gay marriage. It is a bond between two willing individuals who are no different from any other married couple. This would just allow them the same rights as others, the right to inherit things, the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, the right to health insurance, things you and I take for granted. Yet we should deny this right to others?
  3. Marriage is a religous insitution that should not be dishonored. Long ago marriage ceased to be a religous institution and became a legal insitution sometimes held with religious sanctions. If marriage was a religious insitution, would it be possible for atheists to marry each other? Would it be possible for Steve Bean to marry people? Would it be possible for me to marry people? Marriage, like many other things, has been adopted from its original function, to serve a more modern function that suits all.
HJRCA0001 is a disgrace, and is nothing more than political grandstand by Rep. Mitchell to his consituents. There is nothing worse than advocating changing the Illinois Consitution or the United States Consitution to incorporate hate. Hate is not an American value, tolerance is, and I will not stand idly by and watch a hateful agenda pushed in our statehouse. A right denied one is a right denied all.