The Dragon's Cave - A Serious Issue

Thank for for your objective reply, Kath. I'll respond to your thoughts.

The proposed change to the definition of marriage is not simply a revision or an amendment. It is a drastic change to the fundamental nature of the institution. It is like suddenly adding 30 more books to the bible and calling it cannon, or changing the fundamental nature of the constitution (for example, changing the constitution such that the U.S.A. would be a monarchy and the entirety of congress would be dissolved).

As to your second thought, other folks have brought up the same point, that 'civil unions' and 'domestic partnerships' constitute an 'equal but separate' situation. I suppose it can be looked at in this manner. However, the Jim Crow laws (to which many refer when discussing separate-but-equal situations) enacted a physical separation that resulted in much more than a difference of title. Schools were segregated, busses were segregated, some shops and restaurants were segregated. Despite the intent of the 'separate but equal' theory, the practical result was that african americans were treated as 2nd class citizens, often being denied rights not because the law required it, but because the physical separation created such a mentality among many Caucasian societies.

This instance is very different. There is no physical separation whatsoever, no law-endorsed segregation. Heterosexual couples and same-sex couples live, work, and play together in society. Both types of couples enjoy the same rights to shared property, estate, child rights, inheritance, etc. There is not one right nor privilege that is afforded one that is not also given to the other (neither by mandate of law nor by societal mentality).

I'm sorry Kath, I just re-read what I wrote, and I see now that I was unclear. *bonk self*

What I meant to say was that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples constitutes a fundamental change to the nature of marriage itself.

I realize that same-sex couples may feel that they are the victims of discrimination. To be honest, it pains me when I see them hurting because of this. I don't know how to separate the perception that this is discrimination (which is not true), from the actual issue, which is the basic definition of marriage.

As far as I understand, traditional marriage and civil unions are already identical in every way except title. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

Oh yes, Kath--you've been very objective, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

And yes, you are correct when you say that a piece of paper has no bearing on whom you choose to love. I don't think anything or anyone but yourself should make that decision. :)

There are several far-reaching effects that will likely occur if marriage is allowed to be redefined as between "any two people" instead of "one man and one woman".

First of all, since the majority of Californians already voted for the "one man one woman" definition back in the year 2000, it is not right that a panel of four judges can overturn the vote of millions. If we allow a tiny group of individuals to decide that their opinion is more important than the opinion of millions of voters, simply because they sit in a supreme court position, then we are taking very dangerous steps.

Second, if the redefinition of marriage is allowed to stand, then school teachers will be required to teach children that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. Any time that marriage is talked about in the classroom, teachers will be required to say that same-sex marriages are equal with traditional marriages. With same-sex marriage legally on the law books, parents will have no right to object to such things being taught in their children's elementary schools. I realize that some parents may not object to this, but I know that there is a large number of parents who would (including myself).

If same-sex marriage remains legal, it is possible that the phrase 'traditional marriage' and other similar phrases will, in time, be considered 'discriminatory' and 'hate speech', leading to a possible public ban on using such language.

The integrity of heterosexual marriage and family is already under attack, and has been for years. I personally believe that marriage is a God-given institution, but aside from that, marriage has been an integral part of civilization since before recorded history. Just in the last century, the divorce rate has risen sharply, the number of children born out of wedlock has continued to increase, and the idea of a 'traditional family' has been constantly eroded by society.

The redefinition of marriage is simply another step in the destruction of the family. Statistical studies have clearly shown that the most optimal environment for a child's growth is in a stable home with a loving father and mother. I realize that many situations are not optimal, where tragedy or hardship prevents a stable home or reduces a child to being raised by a single parent. I'm not saying that a child cannot be raised in a non-optimal environment. I am saying, however, that a child's best chances for success come when he/she grows up in a stable home with a loving father and mother.

If the redefinition of marriage is allowed to stand, then it will cause further harm to the family as an institution.

I can understand that, Kath. And I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks for keeping it civil. :)

Hiya Vicky! It's been a while since we've chatted/corresponded.

We're doing pretty well, though I've been VERY busy lately with work--new Dungeons and Dragons project in the works. Sorry I haven't been able to tune into the radio show lately. :(

Sadly, the Wii RPG that we've been working on got canned last month. It is sitting on a shelf gathering dust. :(

This week, we are starting a whole new game project, based on Dungeons and Dragons.

That is an interesting suggestion, Hafoc, and I am inclined to agree with the notion that state-recognized marriages should be performed by the state, separate from the religious ceremonies. It might result in less confusion and less waving of red flags by those who consider such things as 'crossing the line' between church and state.

However, I fail to see how state-recognized religious marriages results in the "denial of peoples' legal privileges because [they don't] conform to somebody else's religious beliefs." I know of no heterosexual couple that was denied the right to marry simply because they disagreed with the religious views of a church or institution. If they disagree with the manner in which a specific marriage ceremony is performed, they are free to go to a different church that is more suitable to their preferences, or to be married civilly by the state. In none of these cases are any 'legal privileges' denied the couple.

I too have friends that are gay, Richard, some of them very good friends. Though I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I do not feel that I have the right to tell them who they can and cannot love. Moreover, as I firmly believe that we are all God's children, every one of us has a right to respect and dignity, and thus I strive to treat everyone that way.

Proposition 8 does not restrict anyone, gay or straight, from having a relationship with someone they love. Nor does it prevent them from forming a legally-recognized union, with equal rights for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

All it seeks to do is preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The previous post was from me, by the way.