One of the largest socio-political issues of this century in the United States has been the issue regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriages. The opinions have been strong whether positive or negative ranging from the average citizens to the most influential politicians. Everyone is completely entitled to his or her opinions because we do live in a country that constantly reminds us of free speech. Why on earth does it matter what someone’s sexual orientation is in regards to politics and why is the Republican Party spending tax payers’ money pondering it? For example, Proposition 8, a ballot from California restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. This was one of the most expensive campaigns in that state’s history. Currently 5 states have legalized gay marriage and more states will eventually approve it as well but at what cost? It’s the inevitable and the government needs to stop fighting it otherwise we are going to simply continue spending more money.
Democrats are generally pro-choice in this matter and some do not necessarily believe in same-sex “marriage” however they do indorse same-sex “unions”. Democrats understand the meaning of this issue so much so that even Democratic Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a bill allowing public schools in California to teach gay history as a requirement. He states, “History should be honest”.
In my opinion, the Republican Party is the main instigator in prolonging this issue. Not only have they always been against the idea of same-sex marriages but according to their platform they are now going as far as trying to ban sodomy, strip clubs, and pornography, as well as assigning jail sentences to whoever issues a marriage license to same-sex couples. Their platform also demands Congress to use its power granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts involving same-sex activities. Republican and former NYC mayor, Rudy Giuliani, believes that “Republicans need to stay out of it”. Even though he originally voted against it he feels this has nothing to do with government. The Republican Party should take his advice! What I find interesting is that Republicans get so worked up about same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general when it comes to public awareness. However rather than spending all their time, money and energy focusing on strangers’ personal affairs they should really concentrate on perhaps doing some background checks of their own representatives. For example, Republican and former House of Representative Mark Foley, a homosexual pedophile, and Republican Senator Larry Craig, who was arrested for lewd acts towards another man in a men’s restroom, were both actively working under the Republican umbrella during their arrests.
Our Pledge of Allegiance states, “… to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” I believe the Republican Party’s main issue with homo-sexuality and same-sex marriages isn’t because they think it’s “gross” but because their conservatism is based a lot by religion. We only live one life and we are fortunate enough to live in a country where we can exercise more rights than any other nation. Who are we to judge anyone? If this is an issue of being “saved” then let God worry about that. Republicans should get off of their little God-complex and focus on more important issues on hand like how are we going to provide better education for our children or how are we going to save social security… anything would be better than worrying about what is going on in someone’s bedroom!
Research Resources:
Image Resource:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe views expressed in both Zoe Alexander’s post “Why are Republicans politically worried about homosexuality?” and Alison Holmstrom’s post “Why Civil Unions Are Not Enough” reflect my own. The two posts discuss a variety of reasons as to why the Republican Party’s anti-gay stance is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteAlexander discusses an argument with which I agree strongly. The Republicans are putting valuable time, effort, and money into fighting a battle they’re bound to lose. With gay marriage legal in six states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York) and civil unions legal in another five (Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island), it’s looking like the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage will be “inevitable”. Knowing this, the resources that Republicans are expending towards this issue could much more resourcefully be spent in other ways, by pursuing other issues and finding solutions to REAL problems. As Alexander stated, “Why on earth does it matter what someone’s sexual orientation is in regards to politics”?
Holmstrom argues a different yet equally valid and relevant point: the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of outlawing same-sex marriage. She makes the point that marriage is a religious establishment, as stated in Malachi 2:14. Therefore, giving to couples who partake in this “covenant with God” benefits unavailable to couples who don’t take part in the traditional, religion-based definition of the word is completely unconstitutional, under violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of religion. I find her argument to be incredibly keen and quite interesting. She continues on to point out that “non-Christian people can receive benefits for taking part in a marriage institution”, so “homosexuals shouldn't be denied the same benefits because they are ‘sinning.’” It seems to me like there are all kinds of double standards set up with regards to marriage, and honestly I’m a little surprised this issue didn’t come up sooner. Quite frankly, I think the Republicans should be just as peeved about non-Christians promising by this covenant with God as they should be about same-sex couples wanting to marry.
I find an additional argument within Holmstrom’s reasoning. Article I of the Constitution states that Congress can make no law “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]”. So if there were to exist a religion in which a main principle was marriage between members of the same sex, then Congress could not outlaw gay marriages. How hard can it be to invent a new religion?
Lastly, I think the word marriage brings too much burden. I think that government should come up with a new term for the legal definition of marriage and leave the word marriage to be associated with the Church.