Bloggers Unite: Same-Sex Marriage
When the person you want to spend the rest of your life with ends up in the hospital in the intensive care unit and you are told that you are not allowed to see them because you aren’t “family” is unacceptable.
When the person you want to spend the rest of your life with gets in an accident and is killed and you are not made aware of this except for when their family tells you because you aren’t “family” is unacceptable.
When the person you shared your life with is gone and you are not consulted when planning their viewing, funeral, etc. because you aren’t “family” is unacceptable.
Not only are the three examples above unacceptable, they are also a direct violation of human rights.
Same-sex marriage has had a triumph recently. Today, as if it were planned for Bloggers Unite for Human Rights Day, California’s highest court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional.
This historic victory makes not only myself, but all human rights activists out there insanely happy. It is amazing that the country’s biggest state has opened their eyes and decided not to continue along with many other states out there who don’t believe that same-sex marriage should be legal and make marriage a universal right for everyone.
While same-sex marriage has had a triumph, this coming November opponents of marriage equality are pushing to get a constitutional amendment on California’s November ballot to ban same-sex marriage. If you would like to stand up for marriage equality, please consider signing this petition and pledge to vote no on any constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California.
While this issue is one of many in the insanely large category of human rights, take a look over at the Bloggers Unite community and read what other bloggers are saying about human rights that mean the most of them–And if you have also participated in this day, go plug your post!
Related Posts
5 Responses »
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
Never miss a post! Get news and updates via a feed reader or by email.Link to Menstrual Poetry
Add me to Plurk
I was so glad to see this happen because a good friend of mine cannot marry the love of her life. NOW she can!!! YEAH for her and all the other gays/lesbians:)
I did a post for the event on gay rights as human rights, if you’re interested you can find it on my blog, as well as an essay on marriage (the most and second-most recent posts).
You just know if I stop to comment here, it’s going to be a dissenting vote! Marriage is and should always be between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, which is a religious tradition, is for procreation. Yes, it has evolved over time to be more than just that. However, marriage is a sacrosanct tradition. Same-sex cannot procreate and therefore should not be open to them. I always knew Arnie was a closet liberal! But, coming from a California court, this doesn’t surprise me at all.
What I will say, as a defender of the constitution, this choice should always be left up to each state. I do not believe this is an issue that should be decided or even put in to our federal constitution or decided at a federal court level. This is a state issue and should be decided within each state by the citizens of each state.
However, living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where these individuals move to outside of California, unless it is to Massachusettes, they will not be able to obtain benefits and will be subject to the laws of the other states. Essentially, if they want their so-called marriages recognized, they are practically imprisoned and confined to that state. Federal laws, i.e, HIPAA Privacy, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, etc - will not recognize these marriages either.
There is a separation of church and state. The state is what runs marriage law… not a religion. Therefore, you can be as upset as you want with a law that a state puts in place. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I also do not see how this has anything to do with being liberal. Two humans want to be legally conjunct and I see no problem with the humans both having the same sexual organs. It is rather silly that it is even a debate. To me it feels like arguing over whether a person with blue eyes should ever be allowed to shop in Walmart. Since Walmart never mentioned specifically that blue eyed humans are allowed to enter their establishment. I think there should be a list of people you allow to visit you when in intensive care and you select it just like a will. Then there is the power of attorney thing. You can select anyone you want as your power of attorney and they could visit you. So if people just took the time out to sign over the power of attorney before this type of thing happened they would be fine to visit. Also, if you tell a nurse about your problem they will let you visit the person in the room anyway. Just talk to people and be decent.
Allen - where did you get the idea there is such a thing as “separation of church and state?” Could you tell me exactly what law this is? There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution either. Our founding documents are all based on Christian doctrine. The so-called “separation of church and state” you guys like to cite came from a speech that Thomas Jefferson made at the Southern Baptist Convention and was taken out of context. It is not law and has not been codified in either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. The problem is that leftist groups like the ACLU file suit after suit against government bodies. Those government bodies who are supposed to be good stewards of the people’s treasury have to give in because they cannot use public funds to oppose lawsuits brought on by private organizations such as the ACLU who does absolutely nothing to really protect civil liberties at all. They are only about promoting the liberal agenda to include holding up homosexuals and pedophiles as examples.
Also - it has EVERYTHING to do with being a liberal. Conservatives do not think this way..so..ergo..duh..it is a liberal way of thinking - you might want to look up the definition of liberal versus conservative. The problem with two people having the same sexual organs who want to “conjunct” as you put it is a perversion, it’s un-natural, and its immoral. The problem is that there is a congenital defect at birth where there is an abnormal hormonal imbalance. Rather than treat it medically, people like you have accepted it as natural rather than correct it medically as with all other congenital defects that are treatable.
The problem is that it is not “politically correct” for medical practitioners to speak out, yet there is plenty of peer reviewed studies and documentation that proves what I have stated. It is a liberal agenda to allow this to continue rather than do what is right for these people to lead normal lives by providing them the medical treatment they need rather than allow them to continue this way. The APA was forced to remove homosexuality from the DSM-III because of political pressure - but - the APA still feels it is a medical and psychological condition that is treatable.