Normally, I try to stay out of politics around here because the system is so screwed up that I'm not entirely sure that it matters any longer. However, something came up that *DOES* matter. Recently, the North Carolina Senate passed a resolution to ammend the state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman.
Here's the senate bill:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=s514&submitButton=Go
And here are the votes:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=S&RCS=933
In case you are wondering about the votes in the house, here you go:
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/10121625/
And here's who's currently in the house:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House&sSortOrder=district
(Sorry, I couldn't find something nice like the Senate...)
Anyway, this is *really* important, as now the way has been cleared for the populace to vote on the definition of marriage. Say what you will, this a huge deal because North Carolina is the last state in the South East not to have a formal definition of marriage in its constitution. So, if you are 18 or older and live in North Carolina, you *need* to get out to vote on the referendum on May 8.
(Fun side note - guess when my marriage anniversary is - May 8!)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now that the facts are out there, please allow me to commentate for a moment.
Hi, I'm Phil. If you are reading this, then we probably know each other at least well enough to be facebook friends (since really - who else reads this blog?). So, you *probably* know where I stand on this issue. In case you don't, here it is: I am absolutely against this amendment. First off, North Carolina laws on the books are quite clear regarding gay marriage. Essentially gays can't get married, and gay marriage from other states is not recognized. So, this amendment won't change anything day to day anyway. So, why is it so important? (As a side note, I also think that these laws are backwards and wrong, but that is a topic for another blog post...)
Well, first of all, North Carolina is the only state in the South East without a definition of marriage in the constitution. So, the writing is on the wall. Sooner or later marriage probably should be defined. But do we really want to have such a 20th century outlook on it? (It's true! the "traditional marraige" that people keep going on about is a fairly recent invention.) How about defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender? The real problem as I see it is that if this amendment passes, it's going to be incredibly hard to reverse it.
Secondly, why should we be adding more things to the books? Thomas Paine said "That government is best which governs least." I definitely agree with this. So, even if you like the status quo of only straight people should be able to get married, then why bother voting to ammend the state constituion? It's just more stuff on the books. (And this stuff isn't even good stuff...)
Next, why should this even be an issue? I'm a bit embarrassed that gay marriage isn't allowed. You know what? I'm actually aghast that there is a different term for straight marriage versus gay marriage. Are there two people who love each other and want to spent the rest of their lives together? It's called marriage. Period.
One of the big arguments for this is religious. In virtually every holy book from around the world, homosexuality is a sin. Personally, I am a Baha'i and my religion also condemns homosexuality. So, why would I be in favor of gay marriage? Because of two reasons:
Firstly, I do not think that laws (let alone constitutional amendments!) should be based on religious laws. Baha'is also teach drinking and smoking is wrong. But I also do NOT think that these should be made into laws. If my moral code does not allow for it, then guess what, I should be free to choose not to do it.
Secondly, I actually don't think that homosexuality is wrong. God gave us an intellect to work things out for ourselves. In my mind, holy books are good guidelines, but they are just that. Guidelines. At the end of the day, you (and you alone) are responsible for your actions. Now, if you sit down and think about it, you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is still wrong (AND there should be a constitutional amendment stating such), then please let me know your thought process. Cuz even if you do come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong WITHOUT the help of a holy book, then really what is the harm in allowing it? Nobody is getting hurt. So why legislate against it?
Now, if you are really getting hung up on the religious part of it, then you should really be pushing for the following things to also be outlawed:
- Polyester and other blended fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
- Shaving and short haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)
- Cussing your parents (Leviticus 20:9 - It's a capital offense, BTW)
- Shrimp, Crab, etc (Leviticus 11:10-12)
Another common argument that I hear a lot is that it's a slippery slope. The argument goes "Well, if you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow any sort of marriage." (Common examples are a marriage between a man and a pet, or a man and a piece of furniture.) That is, frankly, bullshit logic. There are certain drugs that are legal, but others that are not. There are certain cars that are legal, but others that are not. And if you want to go slippery slope, then couldn't the same slippery slope argument be made about banning gay marriage? It would go something like this: "Well, if you only allow straight people to get married, then you must also restrict it down to straight people of child-bearing age. Oh, and while we're at it, of the same ecconomic background. Heck, why not just throw same religion and race in there too?" The end result is that we're only talking about one thing: Gay Marriage. None of the other slippery slope arguments are relevant.
One last argument that I hear is that people are trying to "protect the sancitity of marrige". What ... the ... hell? Seriously? This is a real argument? There are at least two reality shows that I can think of that try to get two strangers to meet and get married in a few weeks time. (The Bachelor and the Bachelorette are what I'm thihnking of.) And what about those perfectly legal Vegas weddings that disolve in less than a year? Are those really sacred?
In the end, I just don't get why there is any curfuffel over two loving people getting married. From a legal point of view, it should just be two people who are essentially entering a contract, which will grant extra privelleges to both parties (such a hospital visitation rights, and tax filing priveleges). So, why should the law care what gender the people entering the contract are? From a religious point of view, I can certainly see where there would be a stopping point But why should I be forced to practice someone else's religion? How would you feel is Sharia law was instituted just because there was an overwhelming majority of Muslims in your area?
So, please, get out and vote on May 8. Volunteer to help raise awareness. Do something. This vote, unlike many other votes, is actually very important.
