The Spicer Show  

Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 11/2/2009 3:52 PM UTC

  Defining the American Family
  

  This came from an April 4th, blog.spicersconsulting.com post after Iowa legalized same sex marriage:

   

  Recent news of the State of Iowa Supreme Court rejecting a ban on gay marriage and determining this to be unconstitutional, has brought shock and suprise to many Americans. Most may have thought that a midwestern state would be the least likely to pioneer this legislation among two other states- Massachussets and New Hampshire. This is moving, especially amongst the controversy of California's proposition 8 passing and repealling the supreme court ruling that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It brings up an important question, and relates to my continued focus on denying or preventing access to basic rights and resources as a way of negatively impacting the health of Americans.
  
  The debate over gay marriage is multi-faceted, political and based on a history of opression and discrimination in this country. The 2008 Presidential election brought with it a response of mixed emotions amongst civil rights activists. A huge stride was made toward equality amongst African Americans and people of color, yet a continual (second time a proposition like this has passed in CA) step back for equal rights in California was evident. This in itself is ironic, given that in recent history inter-racial marriage was against the law. Thus as we move towards racial equality, we are regressing in the same direction in context with our history, particularly as it relates to marriage.
  
                                                                         

  

  
  
  Opposition to gay marriage is strongly rooted in religious views defining marriage as a sacred union between a man and woman. Yet, with a clear separation of church and state in this country, is it right to legislate these moral tenants? Personally, I believe this is simply unethical. This can be justified within the context of the laws of democracy and equal access to civil liberties. A ban on gay marriage prevents a same sex couple from attaining many rights and resources. These include: shared custody of children, coverage on health and life insurance benefits, shared ownership of property and the ability to save costs on mortgages, financial assetts and accounts and from what I understand tax benefits. Same sex partners can be prevented from making medical decisions on behalf of their spouse and even the ability to be present as a family member while the other is in the hospital, especially under critical care.
  
  Is this moral? Would denying Americans these rights be in support of the values and principles of Christian or other religious beliefs? This I believe, is what we must seek to answer. From the practical stand point, religious institutions have the choice as to whether they will recognize these unions and oversee a ceremonial same sex marriage. Yet, the provision that a state government has over marriage is entirely civil. Some say that using the term marriage as a way of also defining a same sex couple- will undermine their religious community. However, denying basic human rights to a large segment of our population (as much as 10%) is undermining, unjust and contradictory to our judeo-christian and overall theological world.
  
  In looking at this issue, we must force ourselves to view it from this stand point. Many politicians like Obama, Joe Biden and even Sarah Palin have said they do not condone gay marriage, yet they are not inclined to carry this view point over to the regulation of our government's law. This is where our democratic principles apply. Can we simply say that respect for others and allowing our neighbors to live their lives as they choose is at the core? Given this, shouldn't we allow our fellow citizens the right to equality? Most will anwer yes, and thus we must ask ourselves how we can acheive this as a democratic society. Let us not fool ourselves to believe that this is a one sided issue. It is human, civil, ethical and essential.
  • Tags:
  • marriage equality
  • proposition 8
  • Iowa
  • New Hampshire
  • Massachussets
  • Permalink