So this topic has been bugging me. So I’ll whine for my longest time ever here (have I ever whined here?). If insanity is ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ and ‘those who don’t pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it’. Aren’t the people against this going to lose against the couples fighting for their rights? Are they insane expecting different results!?!
I’ve read a few times that Michigan already has a law that bans gay marriage (here and here) but I personally don’t understand why Michigan was/is also trying to add it to the constitution. I’m not sure if I’ve read this in a reliable news source though, I’ve been obsessed with blogs lately so it might have been there. FYI: Michigan does allow public universities and other entities to provide benefits for same-sex couples that are the same as if the couple was married. (I’ve modified this paragraph a few times since the original post).
Same-sex couples are going to get married in non-official weddings regardless of the law, right? They’ve been doing it for years, even on the steps of the state capitol. So as far as they are concerned, they are married and others will continue to do so. If same-sex couples are getting the same benefits at work (even state/public universities) then what is the difference?!?
I have a real question. If a couple goes and gets married somewhere legal and comes back to Michigan, does their job have to give both members benefits?
This final thought:
“A heterosexual woman who abuses her infant in the womb with drugs and alcohol, and who later fails to provide food or shelter, is granted greater privilege before the law than a lesbian couple who wishes to adopt and properly care for that same child.” This caught my eye while I was looking for a Monday meme and led me to this article which (re)started this thought process while I was in the middle of blogging, hence this entry.
Please feel free to polietly correct me on any incorrect legalisms.
Michigan does NOT have laws that ban same-sex marriage. You are probably thinking of Ohio. A recent effort by Republicans (and far too many Democrats) to have a referendum on amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage BARELY failed (six votes short of the 2/3 majority needed); luckily.
The argument is not about whether or not same-sex or opposite-sex couples should WANT to be married– it is about whether or not they should be allowed to be married.
Furthermore, it is a question of constitutionality. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I have heard VERY FEW anti-same-sex marriage arguments articulated that do not use religion as their basis.
In addition, I would make the argument that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage actually infringe upon the religious liberty of those churches, such as the Unitarian Church, that wish to perform same-sex marriages. The government is recognizing Catholicism over Unitarianism by granting Catholic marriages credibility that isn’t there for Unitarians. That is patently wrong.
The solution is this: Marriage as a government constitution is abolished and left ONLY to churches, to be separate from state, as mandated in the constitution. Churches are free to marry whomever they desire, and NOT marry whoever they choose not to. The government should provide a system of social contracts between two (or more) individuals going into a legal agreement. Period.
Actually we were just talking about this and I think it the original text was more like ‘gay marriage is not legal” (not illegal) just like it’s “not legal to stick bubble gum on my forehead” (but it’s not illegal either). I can’t find the original reference. I knew the 2/3 failure (it’s part of why I was confused).
“The government should provide a system of social contracts between two (or more) individuals going into a legal agreement.” I agree totally with you Jason. That’s part of what I was trying to focus on with the benefits and such.
Now I’m looking around more and found “Since (same-sex marriage) is already illegal in Michigan, I have deep cynicism about what this initiative is all about,” Granholm said. http://c-n.gannettonline.com/election2004/gns/20040224-40238.html
And – ‘Gov. Jennifer Granholm was pleased at the outcome.
Gary: Same-sex marriage IS “illegal” in Michigan– as it is in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, VERMONT (which has civil unions), etc., etc., etc. Every state but Mass. and maybe Hawaii (??)… But you made mention of a BAN. No such ban exists. A proposed constitutional “ban” was just on the house on floor, and was (luckily) defeated. Ohio, however, does have a ban. And that’s what I thought you may have been thinking of.