I picked up this article via Duke City Fix. First I'm gay, queer, homo, whatever label fits best for the reader.
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
barbwire
· 1 year ago
I wonder why hetero marriages are allowed without a church service that provides the sacrament that is allegedly being protected. Hetero couples can get full marriage rights solely by entering into a civil marriage and yet a same sex couple cannot. Illogical, to say the least.
oyegithamu
· 1 year ago
The government at all levels, federal, state, county & municipal, are secular governments & base their laws upon the US Constitution, not upon the bible or any other religious text or dogma.
The New Mexico state law prohibits discrimination based upon that person's race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, gender, age (if 40 or over), physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, disability, spousal affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity.
If someone has a compelling arguement that is not based upon a religios belief of why only a man and a woman can marry, I'd like to hear it.
All Comments
Discrimination goes really deep when an individual is denied any kind of benefit from the government for any reason. Tied to civil marriage and religious marriage are many benefits where in order to derive the benefit or privilege you must be married. Married in this case meaning you have to have a license or sanction from the government and at many points in various processes prove you are entitled by pulling out the license.
Governments require persons who want to drive an automobile to demonstrate a proficiency, pay a fee, and be identified in order to drive a motor vehicle legally. Are these same standards to apply to individuals and what manner of human relationships they have?
Why should a "man and a woman" have more rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. than any individual. Is it too difficult to sum ( 2+2=4) benefits when there is a third party, such as a child between the persons, to determine a level of benefits. Should some one have to be married in order to have health insurance benefits? I could go on and on.
The reality is that persons with moral and or religious belief systems feel they should be privileged because they are taking a "higher" moral ground than non believers.
I think that anyone who wants a religious marriage and all that goes with it including adhering to it's tenets, rules, and sanctions regarding sexual morality including the condition that it only be between a male and a female is fine. That however should not role over into other people's lives who are not of those persuasions.
Civil marriage does not go far enough, it is a separate but equal policy which does not support the full equality of the individual. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults at any level.
The argument that it may bring chaos to the system and fabric of society is an unfounded scare tactic on the part of parsimonious politicians who want to impose their moral and sometimes religious standards on everyone. That is not freedom. We have the technical capability and the knowledge required to convert to a totally non discriminatory system within the confines of government's roles. Marriage is not one of government's roles.
The only honest and equal solution is to eliminate civil marriage and marriage in any form from being a condition of citizenship and participation in the benefits that derive from being a citizen.
I hope that the GLBT community will take a step out of the morass of the gay marriage issue and support totally equality for individuals. Human rights accrue to individuals not groups, races, or organizations.
Every person who is an adult or emancipated adult can enter into a contract that will cover every aspect of peoples lives. There is no need for secular marriage in any form.
Mr. Carraro and Mr. White represent what is wrong in this country, the continuation of discrimination based on religious morals and fear mongering that something will be taken away from the morally correct or some how gay people are a threat to other peoples beliefs. They believe they have the right to impose their thinking and lifestyle on others. Others just want to be left alone to live as they chose.
The other candidates seem to be afraid of losing votes or don't agree that discrimination begins when it is applied to an individual who can be singled out because they are different from the rest of the herd. Its ok to be separate and somehow by appearance be equal.
The New Mexico state law prohibits discrimination based upon that person's race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, gender, age (if 40 or over), physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, disability, spousal affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity.
If someone has a compelling arguement that is not based upon a religios belief of why only a man and a woman can marry, I'd like to hear it.