Here is a nice editorial in the Daily Iowan about gay marriage that irked me. Give it a read (it’s a quick read) and then come back here to read what irks me about it (also a quick read).
—-
<soapbox>
Where do the people who believe in “traditional marriage between one man and one women who can procreate and have a traditional family” stand on adoption? Does infertility exclude one from legal union too? By that definition, any man or woman who cannot create a child without the help of medical science should not legally be able to marry. It amazes me that people who can recite nebulously worded biblical verses penned almost 2000 years ago and cite them as their proof that “God hates fags” don’t choose their words more carefully and often get entangled in a web of their own ignorance and hypocrisy. Language and words are important, but what’s more important are the implications and meanings behind the language, and terms like “traditional marriage” are clearly euphemisms used to veil the bigotry and hatred that these people cannot reconcile in their own hearts and minds.
Whether it is the Bible or the Constitution, some people just cannot help but selectively cling to old documents with vague language that can be interpreted numerous ways. If the writers of the Constitution had shown up to that town hall meeting in Iowa, the representitives who claim to be speaking for them would likely be shocked at the vast differences in the spoken language of Colonial English as compared to how we speak now. At what point do we take into consideration the fact that – even if you don’t believe in evolution – things change. The people and the planet are vastly different than they were when U.S.A declared it’s independence, nevermind how different things are now as compared to when Jesus walked the land (and water). So if we are no longer bound by the knowledge and technology and borders of our ancestors, why must we continue to be bound by their language?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on gay marraige. You are entitlted to oppose it, but there is nothing in the Bible or the Constitution – documents who both share a call for acceptance and tolerance allbeit for different reasons and outcomes – that support that opinion. Just say that you do not want gays to marry because you are uncomfortable with it. Say that you don’t want gays to marry because you do not approve of their life style and that you do not believe the deserve the benefits of legal union. Don’t claim to understand God’s will, because Jesus also taught us not to cast stones. Don’t claim to know what the Founding Fathers believed and wanted, because the same men who wrote that “All Men Are Created Equal” were slave owners. I can respect an opinion that I do not agree with, so long as it is not backed by arguments that just serve as red herrings.
</soapbox>
