I’m sort of surprised the same sex marriage conversations are not evolving more quickly.  The long and short of it (to me) is this:

  1. We still (sort of) live in a free country.  Government should not be denying anyone rights; we all agree on that.
  2. Marriage is a sticky word – lots of religious folks want to protect it’s definition.

To me, the solution is so obvious I’m surprised we’re still talking about it.  I would love for someone to give me some real reasons with my solution explained in detail here (link) does not work for both sides.

In summary, here’s the solution: Privitise Marriage.  Get the government out of the conversation all together (State and Federal).  This would restore freedom to marriage.  This can be done a number of ways; here are two suggestions.

  • Re-write the current government marriage documents and exclude the word marriage.  Write them so that they can be used in any combination.
  • Remove the current marriage documents and don’t replace them with anything – get the government away from marriage.  We really should not need the government’s permission to get married.  I understand marriage is related to property but there are other, smarter ways around that.

IT WOULD WORK, RIGHT?

For the folks in favor of same sex marriage:

  • Equality is achieved.
  • Federal and State documents ether don’t exist, or are identical regardless if the union is same sex, or opposite sex.  The word “marriage” does not exist in government documents.
  • Religious organizations have the freedom (regardless of what state they are in) to perform same sex marriages, or not perform same sex marriages thus respecting their religious freedom.
  • Same sex couples can choose to get married at the places that choose to perform the ceremony.  It can be called anything in the world.  Party, marriage, celebration, union, lemon, whatever.

For the folks who do not support same sex marriage:

  • Marriage is protected, and can be defined by your specific religious organization.
  • Marriage is no longer a government word, and it’s name or definition will not be changed by the government.
  • Religious organizations exist that do not allow same sex marriages which are an option for membership.

BUT WHAT WOULD SCHOOLS TEACH?

Because marraige would no longer be a federal or state issue, marriage would not come up in the classroom at all.  The only thing they could really teach would be the legal documents that replace the old marriage documents (if they even need to exist) but I don’t think schools would waste valuable time teaching that.  What would they teach… where to fill in the names?  As there is no lesson on W-10’s or other government forms I’m sure the new union documents would be left out of the classroom.

OK folks, so let me have it.  How does this not resolve the issue…?

-dm

Miss California - Carrie Prejean

So by now everyone has heard about the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean scandal.  There are three issues at work here.

  1. Asking the question.
  2. The answer.
  3. The response to the answer.

Firstly, asking this question.  Let’s say Perez Hilton asked this “what are your personal beliefs on abortion?”  I think we would all agree that question is in appropriate.  Simularly, asking if same sex marriage should be legalized in all 50 states is also a very polorizing, highly opinion based question.  If I was Miss CA, I would have smiled, waived, and said “world peace.”

Second, the answer was actually pretty good.  She said she loves that we live in a land where people can choose.  Ok, I guess people can sort of choose because they could move to one of the states that allow same sex marriage… I do agree that same sex couples really don’t have much of a right to choose right now.  I personally think that’s a shame as we live in a country that really is supposed to be free.  Please see my previous posts on same sex marriage. So granted, that part of the answer was not spot on since the freedom for same sex couples is pretty limited right now.  None the less, she at least aknowledged that there are some options.

Then, since it was an opinion question, she gave her opinion: that marriage in her opinion was between a

Some guy... blogger I think.

Some guy... blogger I think.

man and a woman.  She did even say “I don’t want to offend anyone out there.”  She did not say anything negative about homosexual people, for all we know she has many homosexual friends.  She just commented on her personal opinion regarding marriage (which is the same opinion of Barack Obama, by the way) as she was requested to do.  I don’t see any fault there.

Thirdly the response.  This is where everyone finally is beginning to see what I have been saying for years.  Perez Hilton is nuts, crude, rude, and worse for society than MTV (and that’s saying a lot).  KEEP IN MIND, MY OPINION OF PEREZ HILTON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  If he was straight, or asexual I would think exactly the same of him.  He’s a blog version of the worst types of tabloid magazine.  I think his site is a plague on culture in the same way celebrity magazines are, and in the same way MTV is.  His actions are not shocking to me at all, unfortunately.

I say this – for every minute that people want to spend reading tabloid blogs or magazines, remember the people who are dying of thirst in other countries and spend some time thinking about them, perhaps donating some money.  I’m telling you, these celebrities are a terrible distraction from very significant things that are happening in the world.  Real people need our help.

-dm